Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Imprisonment of Member

Mr. Speaker: I have received letters from the resident magistrate at the Belfast petty sessions informing me that Mr. William McCrea, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, and Rev. Ian Paisley, the hon. Member for Antrim, North, have been sentenced to periods of imprisonment of seven days. I shall cause the texts of those letters to be published in Votes and Proceedings and in the Official Report.

Following are the letters:
Dear Mr. Speaker,
William Robert Thomas McCrea, Member of Parliament for Mid-Ulster, was convicted by me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 11 December 1987, of taking part in a public procession, contrary to Article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I fined him £20.00, to be paid within 28 days. As that fine has not been paid Mr. McCrea was today committed to Prison for a period of 7 days.
Yours faithfully
C P McRandal
Resident Magistrate
Dear Mr. Speaker
Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, Member of Parliament for North Antrim, was convicted by me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 11 December 1987, of taking part in a public procession, contrary to Article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I fined him £20.00, to be paid within 28 days.

As that fine has not been paid Mr. Paisley was today committed to Prison for a period of 7 days.
Yours faithfully
C P McRandal
Resident Magistrate
Petty Sessions Office,
Courthouse,
Albert Place,
Ballymena,
BT43 5BS.
27th January 1988.

Dear Sir,
I have to advise you that the Rev. Ian R. K. Paisley, MP, of North Antrim was convicted at Ballymena Petty Sessions on 11th November 1987 of the undernoted offence:
That he on the 11 th April 1987 at Ballymena, in the said District and County Court Division, took part in a public procession in respect of which the requirements of Article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 as to notice had not been satisfied, contrary to Article 3(5) (a) of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
The Rev. Ian Paisley was fined £15 which was not paid. On the 23rd December 1987 a Warrant of Default was issued and was executed this afternoon. The Rev. Ian Paisley was lodged in Her Majesty's Prison, Crumlin Road, Belfast, for seven days for non-payment of the said fine.
Yours faithfully,
A. E. Wright,
Clerk of Petty Sessions.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HASTINGS BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

Ordered,
That notwithstanding that the Hastings Borough Council Bill was taken into consideration by the Committee on the Bill in the last Session of Parliament before a report from the Attorney General on the Bill had been presented to the House pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order 158 (Bills affecting charities or educational foundations) the proceedings of the Committee be deemed to have been taken in compliance with that Standing Order. — [The Second Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Drink-Driving

Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has of the effectiveness of the Government's Christmas and new year anti-drinking and driving campaign.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Preliminary police figures indicate an encouraging 16 per cent. reduction in injury accidents during the holiday period. Full figures are expected later this year.

Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that, contrary to recent suggestins on the programme "That's Life", no hon. Member can be in any doubt about my hon. Friend's commitment to tackling the problem of drinking and driving? Does he agree that rather than introduce random breath testing, which would have a disastrous effect on relations between the police and the public, the right way is to influence public attitude and public behaviour? The figures that my hon. Friend has just given show that that policy is proving effective in practice.

Mr. Bottomley: The police have very wide powers. I wish that all the media covering the issue would emphasise those powers. Indeed, 8,000 to 10,000 motorists are caught driving above the legal limit every month, 4,000 of them with twice the legal limit and 20 times more likely to cause accidents. More publicity should be given to the dramatic reductions in injuries. For example, in Gwent the number of fatalities more than halved last year because of cooperative local effort.

Mr. Boyes: I welcome the reduction in accidents, but does the Minister agree that there were far too many accidents at Christmas? Does he also agree with 81 per cent. of the British public who believe that the best solution to the problem is to introduce random breath tests? I hope that 81 per cent. of the British public will sharpen his mind.

Mr. Bottomley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's sustained interest in combating drinking and driving. The big issue is not whether to introduce random breath testing, but whether we, as drivers, stop drinking and driving; whether we, as hosts, stop encouraging drivers to take alcohol, and whether we, as passengers, decline to be driven by someone who has been drinking.

Mr. Higgins: The large number of drivers injured or killed who are found to have been over the limit suggests that there may be a case for random breath testing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the present situation is unsatisfactory? The House has not voted on random breath testing, yet police officers are using their powers to stop vehicles for no reason and testing drivers who they think may have been drinking. In effect, we have random breath testing now. The House should reconsider this matter and correct that apparent anomaly.

Mr. Bottomley: Although it is not a matter for me, I am sure that many hon. Members would welcome the opportunity for a debate. Perhaps the Opposition will

provide the opportunity for a debate on road safety issues to show that no party politics are involved in trying to cut the appalling casualty toll on the roads?

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I welcome the Minister's suggestion that the Opposition should be doing the Government's job, but the truth is that the overwhelming majority of the public believe that random breath testing is the right way to control the abuse of drinking and driving by a small minority. If the Minister does not accept that, will he at least tell us that the advertising campaign carried out before Christmas will be continued throughout the year? The Minister is right. It is important to get across to the public the real damage done by those who drink and drive.

Mr. Bottomley: It would be a mistake to look on bribes to the media, by way of paid advertising, as the only way of raising public awareness. Drinking and driving should be covered as news and current affairs. For example, Scottish Television broadcast five or six half-hour programmes. More of the English and Welsh regions should copy that approach.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend take steps to see that when the breathalyser breaks down, as it did in several instances involving some of my constituents, the back-up system is better than it was in those cases? People who were kept at police stations for five or six hours for blood tests were, quite rightly, cross about that.

Mr. Bottomley: That is probably more a matter for the police and the Home Office. It is important to ensure that the victims receive just as much consideration as those who may or may not be offenders.

London City Airport

Mr. Leighton: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive a report from the Civil Aviation Authority on the future of the London city airport.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I am not expecting any such report.

Mr. Leighton: The Secretary of State will be aware of the troubles of the London City airport and of the resentment of many local people to its intrusion and noise. He will also know that an assurance was given that jets would not use the airport. Indeed, that was a condition of planning permission. Is he aware that the operators have already applied for an extension of the runway and are hell-bent on introducing jets? What assurances can he give to the people of Newham that that danger will not be inflicted upon them?

Mr. Channon: If there were any proposal to have jets at London City airport, that would first be a matter for the airport owners. It would involve an entirely new planning application, and no such application has been made.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that some jets flying today are quieter than the turboprops in operation? As we have a unique facility in the City's STOLport, and a unique aircraft in the British Aerospace 146 that could use it, it seems daft to build a suspension bridge directly under the flight path. I understand that my right hon. Friend has conducted an


inquiry into the construction of that suspension bridge. Will he say when the House may expect to hear the results of that inquiry?

Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says. I have just received the inspector's report. It will take some time to consider, but we will try to he as speedy as we can. To re-emphasise what I said to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), if there were a proposal for these new types of aircraft to use the London City airport, there would have to be a further planning inquiry.

Mr. Spearing: As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has pointed out, jets would be unwelcome at the airport. Whether or not jets are used, is the Secretary of State aware that the London docklands railway extension, which will be discussed in Committee shortly, does not go to the airport at all? Is that not an example of the haphazard way in which strategic planning matters are now being dealt with? Does he agree that it would have been better if there had been a strategic planning authority for London, so that problems such as that would not occur?

Mr. Channon: No, Sir. I do not think that there is any evidence that a strategic planning authority, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, would have done any differently. It is true that the railway extension does not go exactly to the airport, but it will be extremely convenient for the airport and it will be widely welcomed by airport users.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to have completed his review of Channel tunnel rail infrastructure investment; and if he will make a statement, relating particularly to electrification of the Redhill to Reading line.

Mr. Channon: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to British Rail's study of the possible need for additional rail capacity to cope with traffic growth after the tunnel opens. I have asked for a report by June. Possible additional use of the Redhill to Reading line is being looked at during the study.

Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that if the regions of this country are to obtain the maximum benefit from the tunnel, we need to be able to get rail traffic round rather than through London? Does he recall that the South-Eastern Railway built the Tonbridge-Redhill-Reading line for the very purpose of a future Channel tunnel more than 100 years ago, that it was kept open by the Beeching proposals against the day when the tunnel would be built, but that so far the Government have refused to sanction the investment in the line for British Rail, so that all the trains will be pushed through central London? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that, compared with what the French are doing, we are in danger of having a penny-pinching railway system and a penny-farthing railway to go with it?

Mr. Channon: I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend. We have in general terms authorised investment by British Rail in the Channel tunnel project up to about £550 million. British Rail will now have to put detailed appraisals forward for each investment proposal. We are

studying what my hon. Friend said about the RedhillReading line. Obviously his views will be taken into account, but there may well be better ways of doing it than the Redhill-Reading line. Just because it was suitable in he middle of the 19th century does not mean that it will be the best proposal at this stage. However, I do not rule it out. We will study it during the next few months.

Mrs. Ray Mitchie: Will the review of rail infrastructure include consideration of the reopening of Freightliner depots, particularly the three that were closed in Scotland fairly recently?

Mr. Channon: The question whether such a depot should be opened depends on whether it would he commercially worth while arid whether British Rail could show that it would provide a reasonable return. I do riot think that the study will specifically include that subject, but I shall write to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the number of jobs so far created as a result of the Channel tunnel project? Will he also remind himself from time to time of the advantages of the Reading to Redhill link for the western region, while remembering at the same time the difficulty of the connection between electrification and the diesel operation of the western region?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. If we electrify the Redhill to Reading line, we have to decide what happens beyond Reading — [Interruption.] The connecting lines beyond Reading are not electrified either. The matter is more complicated than it might seem, although we are certainly examining it.
A reasonable estimate is that about 3,000 jobs will be involved in the building of the tunnel. Furthermore, there will be an enormous spin-off of prosperity and jobs when the Channel tunnel is the great success that I am sure it will be.

Mr. Barry Jones: If the Channel tunnel is to provide a great stimulus to the rail industry, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any plans for electrifying the Crewe to Holyhead rail line? Does he understand that our unemployment problems would be greatly assisted by such investment?

Mr. Channon: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity. However, we are not planning a tunnel under the Irish sea as yet; perhaps that will come. I do not think that British Rail has proposed what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but the Government have never turned down any worthwhile investment proposal put forward by British Rail.

Mr. Sackville: Will my right hon. Friend remember that many of us have supported the Channel tunnel principle on the assumption that his Department will do everything possible to ensure that the benefits accrue not only to the south-east but to the whole of Britain? Will he therefore ensure that there is a proper through rail link between the north of England and our major European markets?

Mr. Channon: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's view, and I agree with him. I am convinced, as are the majority of hon. Members, that there will be considerable benefits to all parts of the country. Indeed, that applies to what is already happening. Materials are coming from firms in the north-east and Scotland, and that is important


in itself. British Rail is required by the Channel Tunnel Bill to prepare a plan setting out its service proposals, including proposals for through services to all other parts of the country. It is too early to say what the pattern of services will be. Widespread consultation will have to take place in the preparation of the plan, but my hon. Friend has made an extremely important point.

Bus Deregulation

Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new funds have been made available to local authorities as compensation for the extra expenditure caused by bus deregulation; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Deregulation has resulted in a substantial overall reduction in expenditure, so there is no need for extra funds.

Mr. Hood: Is the Minister aware that since deregulation the elderly and disabled in rural communities have become virtual prisoners? Is he further aware that, as a result of the Government's obsession with selling off transport to the quick buck merchants, our rural communities are being caused much stress and concern? Does he understand that, by refusing to give proper financial assistance to local authorities, the Government are compounding a great crisis in our rural communities?

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman considers the facts, he will find that the position is somewhat different. Local authorities are responsible for providing services for the disabled. Questions about bus services in Scotland should, of course, be directed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, I understand that, following deregulation, the need for bus subsidies in Scotland has fallen by more than £10 million, and that should provide ample funds for the services required.

Mr. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that ratepayers in Cheshire have been saved £2 million a year? Should we not be praising bus deregulation and the savings achieved all over the country?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is undoubtedly correct in what he says about Cheshire. The House may be interested to know that across the country as a whole the saving is about £40 million a year for hard-pressed ratepayers and taxpayers. If one includes the savings from precept control, the figure is somewhat in excess of £100 million.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister study the evidence produced by Grampian regional council, which is typical for authorities throughout the country? In eight months last year there were 300 different service changes. The service to rural areas is crumbling rapidly and the director of finance has forecast a crisis unless the Government assist with finance to the area. Is that not the pattern throughout the whole country? Will the Minister publish the evidence instead of relying on homilies on anecdotal evidence, which he appears to repeat from time to time?

Mr. Mitchell: There is nothing anecdotal about the savings which I have just reported to the House and which in Scotland amount to more than £10 million. That provides the local authorities concerned with the resources

to provide services in rural areas as may be required. If there are changes in the pattern of services, it may be that the services are more closely resembling what people want rather than simply being what they were before.

Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend note that the county of Cleveland now has improved services and a £4 million reduction in the money taken from ratepayer's pockets before deregulation? In view of the announcement by Cleveland county council of a 30p increase in rates this year, which is scandalous, I hope that my hon. Friend can find something else to deregulate.

Mr. Mitchell: I do not have power to control what happens in Cleveland, but well over 60 per cent. of the money previously spent on providing subsidies for bus services in the county has now been saved.

Section 8 Grants

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the operation of the section 8 grant system; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Secretary of State agree that the total expenditure on section 8 grants in declining? As a result of that, will he agree to initiate an inquiry into the system, bearing in mind the need to liberalise the provisions and the great exuberance that we have heard this afternoon about the possibility of the Channel tunnel?

Mr. Channon: I see no evidence for an inquiry. Since 1979, 126 grants have been awarded, amounting to £47 million. About 35 million tonnes of freight are removed from the roads each year by the scheme. Naturally, we continue to see whether there are ways of speeding up the process or of simplifying the administration of the grants, but I see no reason for an inquiry. The system is working well.

M25 Motorway

Sir John Biggs-Davison: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measurements have been taken to assess the overall noise rise (L10 and L90) that has occurred on the M25; when and where they were taken; and what further measurements are proposed in the vicinity of the Theydon Garnon interchange.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Noise levels near the M25 were calculated by the prediction method set out in the Department of the Environment's publication, "Calculation of Road Traffic Noise". Additional noise surveys were carried out in 1985 on the A10-M11 section, in my hon. Friend's constituency, and in 1986 on the Wisley to Reigate section. No further measurements are planned at the M11-M25 Theydon Garnon interchange.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Have not the predicted noise levels been exceeded, to the distress of my constituents? May fresh consideration be given in the Department to an acoustic barrier, a noise resistant road surface and the planting of more trees?

Mr. Bottomley: I should like to continue to consider some of those matters, but I do not think that the expensive work can be agreed to. Perhaps I can write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. McCrindle: To endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), will my hon. Friend the Minister pay particular attention to the noise emitting from motorway surfaces? I do not know whether that is peculiar to this stretch of motorway, but there is no doubt that that seems to contribute, perhaps disappropriately, to the trouble suffered by his constituents and mine.

Mr. Bottomley: I understand these genuine anxieties. I am advised that any given level of skid resistance, which is important on motorways — concrete and bitumen surfaces have the same noise characteristics — is undergoing further research.

East Coast Main Line

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to discuss east coast main line services with the chairman of British Rail.

Mr. David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend plans to meet the chairman on 11 February and discuss a wide range of issues.

Mr. Beith: Now that it has become clear that it would be possible, after electrification, to run overnight and sleeper services to Tyneside and the Borders without deficit, and that it may be possible to devise a much cheaper compromise even before then, will the Secretary of State use his good offices to encourage the chairman of British Rail to seek a compromise on this matter?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman knows that these are commercial decisions for British Rail. I have already asked the chairman for his view on the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised with me in recent correspondence. Custom has fallen away and, at Berwick-upon-Tweed—I think the hon. Gentleman's station—on average, only two passengers a night in each direction use the service. The hon. Gentleman may be one of them. Keeping the service going for another three years would lose British Rail about £1 million.

Dr. Thomas: I welcome the investment on the east coast line. Will the Minister consider the impact of improvements of the east coast service on the west coast service from Scotland and on the Holyhead connection? Will he give an assurance that, at some stage, electrification of that service will be planned as well?

Mr. Mitchell: I have received no proposal from British Rail for electrification to Holyhead. Several west coast services will be improved as a result of changes that British Rail is introducing.

Mr. Snape: Does the Minister feel that deficiencies in the east coast service are behind the latest criticism of British Rail from those Left-wing malcontents in the City of London who are complaining that those deficiencies are having an adverse effect on the balance of payments? Would it not be a good idea if, instead of reading a brief prepared by civil servants every three weeks, the Minister and the Secretary of State left their chauffeur-driven cars at home for one week and suffered the same misery as everyone else?

Mr. Mitchell: I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that both the Secretary of State and I are frequent users of the railway system. Moreover, we are considering the City

group's report. Ministers have approved substantial investment by British Rail and London Underground Ltd. to improve services and relieve overcrowding. For example, nearly £60 million was approved for new rolling stock for the Great Eastern lines, nearly £18 million was approved for the Bedford to St. Pancras line and £75 million was approved for the tube. It is for British Rail to propose investments. We have approved all investments that it has put before us. I shall be very happy to have my in-tray filled again.

Drink-Driving

Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on reductions in drinking and driving since 1978.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Responses to surveys indicate a substantial reduction in the number of people who risk drinking and driving, possibly as much as 50 per cent. between 1978 and 1986. The figures show a downward trend in drink-drive injury accidents, from 20,352 in 1978 to 18,254 in 1986.
The General Accident Gallup survey of 18 December 1987 indicated that the proportion of male drivers prepared to risk drink driving over the limit halved between 1986 and 1987.

Mr. Jones: Although those figures are welcome, they show that many people are still drinking and driving, so there is much still to do.
May I make two suggestions? First, many of my constituents complain to me that non-alcoholic beer is still not available in many pubs. Will my hon. Friend suggest to the breweries, when he meets them concerning these matters, that they should be more co-operative?
Secondly, does my hon. Friend think that it is wrong that the 10-year rule should apply to people who have more than one conviction for drunken driving? It is a serious offence, so should they not automatically have a major disqualification on the second conviction, even if it is more than 10 years after the first one?

Mr. Bottomley: The brewers are doing a great deal to promote drivers drinking non-alcoholic drinks or to encourage people to make other transport arrangements after drinking alcohol. I encourage more people to join The Brewers Society's "Wheelwatch" campaign and to copy a good brewery, Charles Wells of Bedford, which has made non-alcoholic beer available on draught.
My hon. Friend's second point would tempt me to get back into my quotations from "The Mikado", which tend to get me into trouble.

Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Minister tasted the non-alcoholic wine available in the House? I can assure him that it is absolutely disgusting and is no disincentive to take alcohol. Will he say whether there has been a correlation in London between the fall in drinking arid driving offences and free transport on London Regional Transport? Would it not be a good thing to have free transport throughout the country and throughout the year, so that we could do away with the problem of drinking and driving?

Mr. Bottomley: It is worth noting that almost 500 people a year die on the roads in London. Obviously, the more journeys that can be made on public transport, which is dramatically safer than using the roads, the better.


That is why the great increase in passenger journeys on London Regional Transport, since it was taken away from the hon. Gentleman, is to be welcomed.
Non-alcoholic drinks can improve, but there are the traditional soft drinks, as well as the new non-alcoholic and very low-alcohol drinks.

Mr. David Martin: Bearing in mind that a reduction in drinking and driving offences is particularly sought at Christmas and over the new year, and that public transport increases the opportunities for not driving, will my hon. Friend, if he speaks to British Rail about commercial matters, raise the matter of the advisability of services being restored to Boxing day this year and in future years?

Mr. Bottomley: I am sure that British Rail will bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments when making commercial decisions. It is important to make all forms of transport as reasonably safe as possible. Although I am occasionally willing to wear sackcloth and ashes for appearing to be hysterical, I am sure that most hon. Members support the drop in drinking and driving casualties from 1,500 eight years ago to under 1,000 now. We hope that they will drop to virtually zero.

Dial-A-Ride

Mr. Morley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to increase funding for Dial-a-Ride services.

Mr. David Mitchell: How much to spend on this or other forms of transport for disabled people is a matter for the local authority in the area concerned.

Mr. Morley: Does the Minister support the extension of dial-a-ride schemes to other parts of the country, particularly rural areas? Does he also accept that it should be the objective of such schemes to give the people involved a journey at least once a week? How do the Government justify the freezing of the present grant to the London dial-a-ride schemes?

Mr. Mitchell: Provision for the disabled in Scunthorpe is provided by the Age Concern minibus and the social service car scheme. The introduction of a dial-a-ride scheme in the area is a matter for the local authority. In many parts of the country local authorities have made such enormous savings, following bus deregulation, that they have the resources to spend on that particular form of service for the disabled, if they want to. The London figure for this year has been increased by the level of inflation, but we believe that much more can be secured by better use of resources.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comment that existing resources can be better used, does he accept that many people are not yet able to use dial-a-ride because they simply cannot get through to it and that, therefore, we do not know how many people are still trapped in their own homes? Will my hon. Friend consider sympathetically other earmarked requests—for instance, for a new telephone exchange for London dial-a-ride, which would do a substantial amount to promote better use of the facilities?

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the difficulty that some people have in making contact with the dial-a-ride services in London, and I shall consider his point about the telephone.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister take account of the powerful alliance of the two Robert Hugheses in the House on Dial-a-Ride? Does he accept the effectiveness of Dial-a-Ride and the benefit that it provides to disabled people, especially elderly women? Does he agree that we should aim for one trip a week for those who need the services, not one trip in 11 weeks, and will he use every effort, including the provision of money, and his considerable influence to increase and improve Dial-a-Ride schemes throughout Britain?

Mr. Mitchell: The dial-a-ride services that are currently available are insufficient to meet all the transport needs of those who depend upon them. Neither the costs nor the assumptions that underlie the one trip a week campaign are entirely accurate or realistic. But I am not unsympathetic to the alliance across the House, which wishes adequate resources to be given to the scheme, and I want to see the good use of those resources.

Greater Manchester Light Rapid Transport System

Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the proposed Greater Manchester light rapid transport system.

Mr. David Mitchell: I have received several representations in favour of the proposed Greater Manchester light rapid transit system, and about the desirability of bringing in private finance. I made an announcement about the Government's position on 18 January.

Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the private sector has majority control of the operating company? Attractive though the scheme may be, it is important to ensure that it does not become a drain on Greater Manchester ratepayers and on the public purse as a whole.

Mr. Mitchell: I can reassure my hon. Friend. Private sector participation should mean rapid construction of the system, and since the private sector will be operating it, we can reasonably expect it to be operated efficiently.

Mr. Litherland: Does the Minister agree that had it not been for obstruction by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), this marvellous initiative from a Labour-controlled authority would have come to fruition much earlier, to the benefit of millions in the region?

Mr. Mitchell: In historical fact, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) was anxious that there should be a private sector contribution and that the entire burden should not be borne by ratepayers. That is what is proposed in the scheme that will go forward with the approval of the passenger transport authority.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware that that decision was widely welcomed in Greater Manchester? Does he agree that it will mean a big improvement in public transport in Greater Manchester, especially when taken in conjunction with the announcement last year on the Windsor link? Does he have more good news for Greater Manchester?

Mr. Mitchell: We always keep an eye on the needs of Greater Manchester and the north-west in general. My hon. Friend is right to call the scheme a big potential improvement. Last Saturday in Manchester I spoke to


several people who were pleased that the scheme was coming, and I have no doubt that when I visit Manchester next Friday for the Transport 2000 conference I shall hear the same thing.

British Rail Engineering Ltd.

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with the chairman of British Rail about the future size of the work force in British Rail Engineering Ltd.

Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with the chairman of British Rail about the future size of the work force in British Rail Engineering Ltd.

Mr. David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend discussed BREL's future with the British Rail chairman last November. He then made a statement to the House announcing approval for British Rail to offer the company for sale. Employment at BREL is a management matter for the company and, until it is sold, for the British Railways Board.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Did the Minister accept that part of the British Rail corporate plan which said that the work force of BREL should be reduced to 4,000? If he did, does he intend that the privatised units will have the full right to tender for any work that is handed out by British Rail, or was it just a way of scrapping thousands of engineering jobs, with complete disregard for the interests of people such as my constituents?

Mr. Mitchell: British Rail Engineering Ltd. has no plans for more major redundancies before the sale takes place, which will confine the loss of jobs to the 3,000 redundancies announced last September. As for the second part of the hon. Lady's question, the purchasers of the company will decide for which contracts to tender.

Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister confirm that, in spite of grossly overcrowded trains and frequent cancellations due to defective stock, he and his colleagues see no future for BREL? Will he take on board the fact that up to 3,500 jobs could be created over a two-year period in BREL merely by putting one extra carriage on each commuter train leaving the London termini at peak hours? Is he concerned about the prospect of positive job creation through BREL?

Mr. Mitchell: There are certain practical difficulties about adding an extra coach to all the trains, as the platforms would have to be lengthened, too. British Rail is responsible for its own investment proposals, which it puts to Ministers. Ministers have approved all proposals that have come forward from British Rail, and the reductions in the labour force at BREL are a result of a fall in repair and maintenance work, much of which is a result of new investment in rolling stock, leading to fewer repair requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Security

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide a further update of the costs so far incurred in the "Spycatcher" case, and in all other cases in which

Her Majesty's Government are a party, and which involve the restraint of publication of security-related information.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): In the "Spycatcher" litigation the total amount of costs expended to date by the Government is about £575,000. The total expenditure to date on other current cases relating to the duty of confidentiality is about £9,000.

Mr. Winnick: It is all a waste of money. Will the Attorney-General state whether in any of these cases it was the Government's position that members of the security service could carry out criminal activities without any action being taken against them? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the lack of any effective parliamentary scrutiny of the security service is not only wrong in itself, but is undoubtedly a blot on our democracy?

The Attorney-General: The contention in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was never put forward on behalf of the Government. I might remind the House usefully of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in a written answer the other day:
At no time have the Government asserted that any of the alleged actions which have featured in recent newspaper articles could lawfully be done under the prerogative when they would otherwise be criminal offences." —[Official Report, 29 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 397.]
The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not a matter for me.

Mr. Warren: How is it that people such as Wright arid Cavendish can flout our law and apparently publish what they want with no action taken against them? Is there no jurisdiction over them?

The Attorney-General: Mr. Wright and Mr. Cavendish, are rather separate considerations. Mr. Wright is outside the jurisdiction, but action has been taken in the courts in Australia. In the case of Mr. Cavendish, civil proceedings have been taken in England and Scotland.

Mr. Beith: When will the "Spycatcher" farce end? As the Government's actions seem to have led to the enrichment of Mr. Wright, how does it uphold the confidentiality of members of the security services to continue them? As the information contained in his book is now widely available throughout the world, is not the effect to keep from the British people information that they can obtain only with adverse consequences for our balance of payments?

The Attorney-General: My answer to the last part of the question must be the same as it has been for many months. It is important to uphold the duty of confidentiality — that has now become common ground in the litigation. Mr. Justice Scott in his judgment at first instance on the question whether the injunction should be made permanent said:
Mr. Wright was in flagrant breach of the lifelong duty of confidence owed to the Crown.
We must consider whether we should stand back and allow someone in that position to publish in this country, which must he the most profitable market, with all the consequences for the liaison security services of our allies that would follow.
It is not right to describe all this as a farce. It is a matter of serious import, and it is still before the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Stokes: Would it be possible for my right hon. and learned Gentleman to provide a further update of the costs so far incurred in the "Spycatcher" case by unnecessary and tedious questions from Members of Her Majesty's Opposition, and in particular from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)?

The Attorney-General: I never complain that the questions are asked, but I sometimes complain about the reception that the answers receive.

Mr. John Morris: May I ask the Attorney-General whether the Treasury has suggested that there should be a cash limit to this worldwide litigious rampage by the Government? Since there is considerable anxiety that the present Legal Aid Bill will result in furthering a second-class service for ordinary litigants, will the right hon. Gentleman publish a table of the fees paid in this case and compare it with legal aid fees so that we shall have an idea of what constitutes fair remuneration?

The Attorney-General: The last time that I was asked about costs I said that I thought the money was well spent. I remain of that view. Of course the Treasury will welcome it if the Government's litigation is ultimately successful. For example, the Government's claim for an account of the profits would substantially reduce the net outlay. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked a rather omnibus question about legal aid. As he knows, that is a matter for the Lord chancellor. It is not my practice to publish fees that are paid to individual members of the Bar or to solicitors.

Jurors and Witnesses (Costs)

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the maximum expenses and loss of earnings claimable by (a) jurors and (b) witnesses.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The maximum limits on expenses and compensation for loss of earnings reimbursed to jurors and witnesses are reviewed annually in accordance with Treasury guidelines. The maximum compensation for loss of earnings was increased from £25·40 to £27·50 per day in October 1987 for witnesses and in November 1987 for jurors. The levels of other expenses, including, for example, subsistence payments, were also increased at various times during 1987.

Mr. Bowis: At the time of the next review, will my hon. and learned Friend pay particular attention to the burden on the self-employed and on the agency or temporary worker of performing this community service as a witness or juror?

The Solicitor-General: No distinction is made between those who are employed and those who are self-employed. Increases are made by reference to increases in national average earnings.

Director of Public Prosecutions

Mr. Janner: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what subjects were discussed.

The Attorney-General: I last met the director on Friday 29 January. We discussed matters relating to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect to discuss with the director that peculiarly offensive and evil document known as Holocaust News? In particular, has he considered counsel's opinion that the perpetrators of this document are in breach of the law and should be prosecuted? Can we expect action from the Attorney or the director, or from both, and if not, why not?

The Attorney-General: It so happens that that extremely unpleasant publication to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers was among the subjects that I discussed with the director on Friday. He and I have both considered the opinions of Mr. Beloff QC, and also of first senior prosecuting counsel to the Treasury. The director and I remain of the view that there should be no prosecution.

Mr. Aitken: When my right hon. and learned Friend advises the Director of Public Prosecutions that a prosecution is not in the public interest, what, precisely, are the criteria on which he bases his advice? May I ask him to expand on his statement to the House on Monday by saying how he decides on priority between, say, the public interest in maintaining the operational secrets of MI5, the public interest in avoiding a breakdown in Anglo-Irish relations and the public interest in upholding the rule of law? How and why does he choose?

The Attorney-General: I shall answer in general terms the question about my general criteria, but I do not think that the question about Holocaust News relates to Ireland. Having satisfied myself that the evidence is sufficient to justify proceedings, I then consider whether in any particular cases the public interest requires a prosecution. Each case is judged on its own facts and with special regard to the circumstances, both of the alleged offence and of the alleged offender, and to any other considerations affecting public policy. This is simply an application of long-established principles previously endorsed by the Attorney-General's guidelines on the criteria for prosecution now reproduced in the code for Crown prosecutors issued pursuant to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General clarify the statement that he made last Monday concerning the responsibility for the decision on whether it is in the national interest to prosecute? Will he confirm that that decision is for him alone, and that if, in his view, it is not in the national interest to prosecute, that is the end of the matter and the DPP has no role other than to implement his decision?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that that is not the case. If he has studied the code for Crown prosecutors, he will know that, in every prosecution decision, it must be asked whether the public interest requires a prosecution, even if the evidence is sufficient and the other criteria are met. In cases in which the DPP is the prosecuting authority, and does not seek the consent of the Attorney-General, that process must be carried through by the DPP. In a case in which I must give my consent—for example, under the Race Relations Act 1976 — the responsibility is mine. The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that the matter was fully dealt with by my predecessor in a written answer a year or two ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Aid Budget

Miss Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the value in current prices of official aid flows by Her Majesty's Government in 1979 and for the latest available year.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): In 1986 prices, gross public expenditure on overseas aid was £1,623 million in 1979 and £1,358 million in 1986.

Miss Mowlam: In view of the poor record that the Minister has reported to the House, does he accept that there is a case for raising the total level of aid, particularly in view of the billions locked up in the Treasury, which his Government are unprepared to spend elsewhere—even on the National Health Service?

Mr. Patten: As for our record, as the hon. Lady will know, the Labour Government left a number of public expenditure programmes in 1979 which they could not conceivably have sustained at the then current levels. If the hon. Lady does not believe that, perhaps she should read the autobiography of the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
As for the future, I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that our aid programme is set to grow in real terms over the next three years.

Mr. Jack: Will my hon. Friend tell us whether any of the flows of aid finance went to Panama in respect of programmes to counter international concern that the destruction of the country's rain forests may be affecting the future of the Panama canal?

Mr. Patten: That is the first question that I have ever been asked about Panama. I am delighted to say that we have been able to make contributions towards the protection of rain forests in other countries. I do not believe that we have yet done anything in Panama, but I shall look up the details for my hon. Friend. We do a fair amount in Central America through the European Community programmes.

Sir Russell Johnston: The Minister is continually defending the Government's record on aid. Surely, however, a proper criterion is comparison with other countries. Is it not a matter of some concern to the Minister that the recent OECD figures demonstrate that the Soviet Union has now passed us in the proportion of its national income that is spent on aid?

Mr. Patten: I have not always been as convinced by the figures produced by the Soviet Union as the hon. Gentleman clearly is.

Miss Mowlam: Look at the OECD figures. The Government usually accept them as a correct record.

Mr. Patten: According to the OECD figures—which greatly impressed me, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) will be impressed as well—whereas about 60 per cent. of the money provided by other donors goes to the poorest countries, the United Kingdom figure is 75 per cent.

Mr. Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the handsome progress that he has made on the aid budget.

Will he tell the House what steps he and his Department are taking to discourage some of the countries to which we give large amounts of aid from some of their more lunatic financial excesses?

Mr. Patten: As my hon. Friend may know, we have given increasing amounts of support to the structural adjustment programmes being pursued by a number of African and other countries. We have also made a substantial contribution to the enhanced structural adjustment facility, which will encourage developing countries to follow sensible policies.

Ms. Lestor: May I refer back to the answer that the Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) on the level of aid? The Minister has suggested that the Labour Government, had they continued in office, would not have been able to sustain the plans that they had in the coffers. Bearing that in mind —and in view of the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) stressing the need for a timetable to reach the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product for aid, and the various calls on the aid budget—will the hon. Gentleman put pressure on the Foreign Secretary to have an open debate in the House of Commons, in Government time, to discuss the aid budget and future Government allocations to it?

Mr. Patten: That sort of question is more normally put on Thursday afternoons, but I shall always be more than happy to have a debate on our overseas aid programme, during which I can tell the House about several matters, for example, the Chancellor's debt initiative.

Sugar Producers

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any further plans to increase aid to Third world nations who depend on sugar production for their livelihood to enable them to diversify and increase their food production; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chris Patten: I am always ready to consider proposals from sugar-producing countries to use the aid available to them to help diversify their economies and increase efficient domestic food production. We already provide that kind of help.

Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that the EEC is dumping sugar on world markets and that that has a catastrophic effect on sugar production in the Third world? The World Development Movement estimates that 12 million workers are dependent upon sugar for their livelihood. Wages in the Philippines are only 35p a day for sugar workers, and great disruption is being caused by EEC policies. In addition to working for a new international sugar agreement, will the Minister consult the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with a view to bringing about a change in EEC beet production policy so that dumping on world markets will not continue?

Mr. Pattern: I have read the interesting literature produced by the World Development Movement. Of course, extra sugar production is not a unique European Community problem. In recognition of that fact, the Community has tabled proposals in the GATT Uruguay


round for urgent measures to improve the world sugar market, including a reduction in the amounts that are placed on the market by major exporters.

Mr. Wells: Is it true also that it is important to maintain the support price for 1·4 million tonnes of sugar imported into the country and that, indeed, there is now an opportunity to increase imports to Europe at the support price by increasing the amount that Portugal accepts from ACP countries? Will my hon. Friend support such a move?

Mr. Patten: We shall have several opportunities to discuss the issues as we start on the next round of negotiations under Lomé. The Government remain fully committed to the maintenance of guaranteed access for ACP sugar under the Lomé convention.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that access alone is not enough and that the price referred to by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) is important? Does he agree also that if the EEC is to discharge its moral responsibilities to ACP states, price and refiners' margins are equally important, and that we should reduce the surpluses to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman will have several opportunities to ask that question of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Food Aid Programme

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will raise at the next meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers the report of the Court of Auditors on the operation of the food aid programme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chris Patten: The Council's working group on food aid has discussed the report. It agreed that the new procedures that were introduced in 1987 should help the European Community in future to avoid many of the serious problems listed by the Court of Auditors.

Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the report showed that there was massive waste and corruption, that aid for starving people was arriving a year late, and that some food was rotten and inedible and, in one case radioactive? Does he believe that the best way of stopping taxpayers' money being wasted in such an appalling way is to say on 12 February that there will be no additional funds to the Common Market until such scandalous waste at the expense of starving people is stopped?

Mr. Patten: I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that the report to which he referred concerned the management of food aid that went on before we helped to secure the reform of the regulations during our presidency of the Development Council. The auditors' report confirmed the good sense of the reforms that we pushed through the Development Council.

Tanzania

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to make further aid available to Tanzania.

Mr. Chris Patten: I have just returned from Tanzania, where I announced a new pledge of £20 million of fast-spending balance of payments support. This will be part of the World Bank's new initiative for co-ordinating such aid for poor, debt-distressed countries in sub-Saharan Africa that are following adjustment programmes. It brings our pledges in support of Tanzania's economic recovery programme since August 1986, when it reached an agreement with the IMF, to over £70 million.

Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on our aid to Third world countries. Will he take account of the figures given last week that there will be 1 million AIDS sufferers worldwide by 1990, a substantial number of whom will come from Tanzania and elsewhere in Africa? They are posing a threat not only to the continent of Africa but to Britain and Europe. What will his Department do to alleviate this problem?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of this issue. While I was in Tanzania, I announced a contribution of £1·5 million, to be made through the World Health Organisation, to help with the Tanzanian AIDS control programme.

Ethiopia

Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consideration has been given to the appeal by United Nations agencies for emergency aid for Ethiopia; and what response has been made.

Mr. Chris Patten: As I have already informed the House, we are providing £2 million in response to the United Nations disaster relief co-ordinator's request for assistance with an emergency food airlift in Ethiopia.
I have also now decided to provide £600,000 to the United Nations Children's Fund Ethiopia appeal.

Mr. Barron: I congratulate the Minister on responding to the United Nations Children's Fund. On 30 November I asked him to do so and he said he would consider the matter. He has taken a long time. Is he satisfied that the grant is enough, given the difficult position of children in Ethiopia?

Mr. Patten: I thought that it was important to see the position in Ethiopia for myself, which I have now done twice, the second time briefly. Our contribution to the UNICEF appeal is the joint third equal of other national donors. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that that contribution should be added to the £35 million that we have made available so far for humanitarian assistance with the consequences of the present drought.

Britoil

Mr. John Smith: (by private notice): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, following the acquisition by BP of the majority shareholding in Britoil, he will make a statement on how he proposes to use the special share to preserve the independence of the company.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The Atlantic Richfield Company, Arco, has now formally agreed to sell its 24 per cent. holding in Britoil to BP. Taken with its existing holding of 29·8 per cent., this would give BP nearly 54 per cent.of Britoil's ordinary shares. How many more shares it acquires depends on the response to its increased offer.
In the circumstances which have now arisen, the Government will be discussing the situation with BP and with Britoil. These discussions will, of course, be without prejudice to the decision by my right hon. and noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in the light of advice to him from the Director General of Fair Trading, on whether the acquisition should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The House will understand that in advance of these discussions it would not be sensible for me to give details of the outcome which I have in mind. But I can reaffirm that the powers of the special share will be used for so long as it is in the national interest to do so. We shall, of course, take fully into account what is best for Scotland and for the development of the North sea.

Mr. Smith: Is it not clear to everyone that BP now has effective control of Britoil, and that unless the Government use the special share Britoil will cease to be an independent company?
Does the Chancellor recollect, when he was Secretary of State for Energy, saying:
The very existence of these powers"—
the special share—
will act as the most formidable deterrent to anyone who tries to take over control of the board, of the company or of the majority of its shares, and who the Government consider to be unacceptable." [Official Report, 31 March 1982; Vol. 21, c. 334.]
Will the Chancellor describe how BP was affected by that "formidable deterrent", as, in pursuit of Britoil, it has acted as if the Chancellor's specially devised protection simply did not exist?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give a straight answer to the question: is BP acceptable or unacceptable to the Government? Does he recollect another assurance that was given to the House by the then Minister of State, now Lord Gray of Contin, who said:
The articles will contain effective safeguards for Britoil's independence and the safeguards will be triggered if there is an attempt to take over voting control of the company or to control the Britoil board or its composition." —[Official Report, 1 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 450.]
In the light of those assurances given by and on behalf of the Chancellor, what will he now do to honour them? Surely his only course is to say now, emphatically, that he will use his special share to maintain Britoil as a wholly independent company, as independent in every way as it was before the BP bid was lodged. If the right hon. Gentleman does not do that, but produces some cobbled-together deal garlanded with more assurances, he will have engaged in a dishonourable retreat from specific

guarantees given to the House. If that happens, will it not prove that, once again, privatisation leads to the bolstering of monopoly?
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this company is the largest publicly quoted company in Scotland and that the obliteration of its independence would be a severe blow to the west of Scotland and to the dispersal of corporate headquarters throughout the country? Is it not time that the Chancellor cleared the whole matter up and made it crystal clear that the special share will be used to achieve the national objectives which he advertised some years ago?

Mr. Lawson: I have made the position crystal clear. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted from what I said nearly six years ago on Report on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, and I am especially glad that he quoted column 334. I point out that. Britoil has enjoyed complete independence for some five years since it was privatised.
I shall again read—the House should pay attention—the quotation from Hansard, accurately read by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when I said:
The very existence of these powers will act as the most formidable deterrent to anyone who tries to take over control of the board, of the company or of the majority of its shares, and who the Government consider to be unacceptable.
I shall read two further quotations, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman is interested. I said:
We wanted to create effective safeguards which would enable the Government to prevent any unacceptable change in the future control of the company".
I said:
We have given, as has BNOC and its advisers, considerable thought to the articles to ensure that they are an effective means of protecting Britoil's independence against unacceptable changes in control." —[Official Report, 31 March 1982; Vol. 21, c. 333–4.]
It was quite clear from the beginning that the possibility of an acceptable change in control existed.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether control by BP would be acceptable. That depends on the outcome of the discussions which we shall have. That is precisely what they are about.
It is strange to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman treating BP as though it were some kind of pariah. I should like to read what he said in the House on 29 October 1987, barely three months ago, about the share offer and BP. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
Is it not the case that the first victim will be BP, Britain's largest company? … Is it not clear that BP will suffer … I regard it as a matter of grave seriousness for BP and this country.
The interests of BP have been cast aside". —[Official Report, 29 October 1983; Vol. 121, c. 541.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's schizophrenia is such as to make his remarks today totally valueless.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Tell us about the Kuwaitis' nationalisation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not keep interrupting from a sedentary position.

Sir Michael Shaw: Is not the outcome, so far, of this affair entirely satisfactory? The foreign bidder has been deterred and Britoil remains British. Is that not the object of the exercise?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend makes a very important and pertinent point.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Why can we not have straight answers to our questions? Is BP unacceptable, or not? It is certainly wholly unacceptable to the staff and management of Britoil. Why does not the Chancellor say that, as part of his objectives in any discussions—about which we are suspicious—that he may have with BP, at the very least he wants Britoil to remain an independently managed company and the head office and corporate functions to remain in Scotland, in Glasgow?

Mr. Lawson: I am very conscious, as I mentioned in my earlier answer, of the Scottish dimension. It is important to consider the best interests of Scotland in all this.
The right hon. Gentleman may not find BP an acceptable company, but the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) showed the greatest solicitude for BP's welfare some three months ago, so he clearly regards it as an acceptable company. Whether the change of control to BP will be acceptable will depend on the outcome of the discussions which will be taking place, as I informed the House.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the original objective of the special share was to deter a foreign takeover rather than to protect the independence of Britoil in perpetuity? As that is now not contemplated, surely there is no need to use the special share?

Mr. Lawson: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. I know—I recall well—that at the time of the debates that we had in 1982 the concern of the Opposition was that there might be a foreign takeover of Britoil. That was their concern, and nothing else. However, I do not think that it is right now to give up the special share. It is necessary to maintain the special share to ensure a satisfactory outcome and to ensure that whatever is agreed is adhered to.

Mr. Malcom Bruce: Will the Chancellor acknowledge that BP's takeover of Britoil is its revenge on the Government for the Government going ahead with the sale of shares last November, and that BP is now in direct confrontation with the Government's interests on this matter? Will he not accept that the existence of Britoil as an independent company is vitally necessary, not just for Scotland, but for the healthy development of exploration activity in the North sea, and that in those circumstances, the loss of Britoil's corporate headquarters from Scotland, and the loss of Britoil as an independent company, would set that course back? Does he not acknowledge that BP is transferring people from Aberdeen to London? How does that square with it keeping its corporate headquarters in Scotland?

Mr. Lawson: If the hon. Gentleman is bidding for the leadership of the new party, he will have to do a little bit better than that.
I specifically mentioned the best interests of the development of the North sea, and especially Britoil's assets in the North sea, in my reply. As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is any difference between BP and myself over the question whether the BP share issue should go ahead, which the hon. Gentleman has alleged and which was alleged earlier by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), that, of course, is totally untrue.
I should like to read briefly from what the chairman of BP, Sir Peter Walters, said at the annual BP press lunch a fortnight ago. He said:
The outcome was in my view the right one; the sale should have gone ahead. I was very pleased though that there was this temporary lifeboat represented by the Bank of England offer to buy back the partly paid which has now expired and which, as you see, almost no one took advantage of. There was no disagreement between myself and the Chancellor as to whether the sale should go ahead or not.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us believed that it was right for there to be a big foreign interest in the North sea but that no one in this House contemplated the chance of virtually the whole of our oil industry in the North sea being controlled by foreign interests? Is he aware that many of us think that the wisest decision that the Government made was to keep a golden share and keep some control in our hands? Is he also aware that Nomura Securities of Japan is bigger than all our banks put together and that it could take over Prudential Assurance and have that as only petty cash? Is it not right that we must make it clear what we wish to control and what we are willing to sell out to other people?

Mr. Lawson: I note very carefully what my hon. Friend, who is an expert in all these matters, has said. Of course, it is not a matter for me, but I would have thought that if there were—I realise that this is purely hypothetical—to be a bid by Nomura Securities for the Prudential, there must be a strong chance that that would be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Tony Benn: Does the Chancellor recall that, as Liberal First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill took control of the Anglo-Persian oil company which became BP, in 1914, because oil was so important to the British Navy and to Britain; that the establishment of BNOC gave us further control; that Britoil also gave us control and that when Burmah Oil company went bust, BP acquired its shares to strengthen British control and influence? Does he also realise that, both as Secretary of State for Energy and as Chancellor, he will be the man who threw away our control of the oil resources and the revenues accruing from them?

Mr. Lawson: I have answered that question many times before at greater length than I propose to do now, although it is always good to see one of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Energy in his place when we discuss these matters. The plain fact is that times have changed. It is no longer necessary for the British Government to own shares in BP and, indeed, BP believes, that it is far better off without the British Government. Furthermore, I must remind the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that he presided over the first sale of BP shares.

Mr. Ian Gow: Since it was the primary purpose of the special share to prevent the unacceptable takeover of Britoil, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the indignation—however synthetic—of the Opposition would be much more justified if there had been an unacceptable acquisition?

Mr. Lawson: I suspect that my hon. Friend, as usual, is correct. Certainly, although the special share was put in, as I said at the time, to prevent any unacceptable change of control, I remember very clearly the debates that we had


at that time. All the Opposition were talking about was the risk of the foreign takeover of Britoil. That was all that they were concerned about.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman is remembering the numerous debates that we had on those issues. Does he remember the numerous times that he said that the whole point and purpose of privatisation and the creation of Britoil was to create a bright, independent British oil company in the North Sea? What price now that independence? Is it not the case that BP's interests now appear bigger than the national interest and bigger than the Government's wishes?

Mr. Lawson: I remain anxious to have the best possible development of the United Kingdom continental shell and I know that that concern is shared by the hon. Gentleman. However, I do not believe that it necessarily follows that that has to be secured by Britoil remaining unconnected with BP. We shall have to see what can result from the discussions that we shall have with BP.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend envisage that the Government's forthcoming discussions with BP will be in the nature of a vigorous wrestling match, or tea and sympathy? I urge my right hon. Friend to adopt the friendly approach, which I believe is suggested by his tone this afternoon. Unless the Government are suddenly adopting the blinkers of Scottish nationalism, surely it is inconceivable that BP's ownership would be contrary to the national interest.

Mr. Lawson: I believe that discussions will take the form of hard negotiations conducted in an amicable atmosphere.

Mr. George Galloway: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought weasel words to the House this afternoon. The golden share was to be a shield to protect the independence of the independent oil-producing and oil-exploring sector, but it has proved to be no more formidable than a piece of silver paper.
Much has been made by the Chancellor of the unacceptability issue. The board and the staff of Britoil —highly skilled staff at the top of their profession—to a man and woman find the BP takeover proposals completely unacceptable. One of the things that has been said concerns the Britishness of BP. How British is BP? Will BP be BP with a billion shares owned by the Kuwaiti Government through the Kuwaiti Investment Office? Unless the Government stiffen their back and offer some resistance to the proposals, this will represent another well-heeled kick in the face of Scotland and the oil-producing sector.

Mr. Lawson: BP is most certainly British and will remain so. The acceptability issue is extremely important. As the hon. Gentleman reminds the House, and as I did earlier, we specifically took the power to prevent any unacceptable change of control. [HON. MEMBERS: "Independence."] The whole thing must be read in context. I said that on no fewer than three occasions in that one column of Hansard alone. That is what is at issue now. The discussions are designed to ensure that if there Js to be —I said if—any change of control, it will take place in an acceptable manner. It is the responsibility of the Government, acting in the national interest, to decide what is acceptable.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is an extension of Question Time.

Northern Ireland (Stalker-Sampson Inquiry)

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, Under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for urgent action by Her Majesty's Government in the light of new information concerning the conduct of the Stalker-Sampson investigations in Northern Ireland.
The issue is important because it concerns the basis of the rule of law, whether it applies to the police and Ministers, whether they are above the law and what considerations were given under the Official Secrets Act to the publication of Mr. Stalker's memoirs, compared with the considerations given to Mr. Cavendish.
It is urgent because tomorrow there is a meeting of the Anglo-Irish secretariat at which the Secretary of State will be seeking to explain away the Attorney-General's mind-boggling decision and the disciplinary measures he is proposing to take against a number of officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is important that we should know whether the Chief Constable of the RUC, who originally asked Stalker to undertake this investigation but who later wrote a letter denying him information because it was classified as grade A by the Special Branch, is among those to be disciplined.
It is important to know whether the assistant chief constable, Mr. Forbes, who refused to give Mr. Stalker access to the file of a possible agent provocateur unless ordered by the Chief Constable and would not forward Mr. Stalker's request to the Chief Constable, is also to be disciplined.
It is important to know whether the officer who denied the existence of a file for three months, thus causing extra work for six officers, and who handed over the file only when he was cautioned that he was a criminal suspect, is to be disciplined.
It is important to know whether tomorrow the Secretary of State will confirm the existence or otherwise

of a tape recording of the events in the hayshed where Tighe died, which was not available when the case was tried by Lord Justice Kelly.
We also need to know whether the conclusion of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to proceed with shoot-to-kill allegations of 11 and 24 November and 12 December 1982 was supported by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson, whether Mr. Sampson heard the tape, whether it was handed over and whether it is still in existence.
Those are important matters. They go to the root of our relationship with the Republic of Ireland, our allies in the most important fight against terrorism in these islands. The House should debate these things before the Secretary of State goes to his meeting tomorrow, where the reputation, honour and honesty of this country, the rule of law and the integrity of Ministers and the police are at stake.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
The need for urgent action by Her Majesty's Government in the light of new information regarding the conduct of the Stalker-Sampson investigations in Northern Ireland.
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for today or tomorrow.
I regret that I cannot find that the matter the hon. Gentleman has raised meets the criteria laid down under Standing Order No. 20, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Tony Benn: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am about to call the right hon. Gentleman to move his own application under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Benn: May I—

Mr. Speaker: No. I have dealt with that matter.

Industrial Disputes

Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the direct responsibility of the Government for provoking the industrial dispute in the mining industry and for the proposed strike action by nurses and others, who arc being forced to take action to protect the National Health Service.
Every time that a Standing Order No. 20 application is made, hon. Members are asking you, Mr. Speaker, who have discretion, to give us the right to talk about matters of immediate concern. It is now four years since the miners' strike, and the evidence of the memoirs and other papers that have been published make it absolutely clear that the Government and Mr. MacGregor provoked the miners' strike deliberately for their own purposes.
Four years later, the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers finds that British Coal will not negotiate with it, and is therefore unilaterally in breach of the long-standing contract arrangements dealing with the conditions of NACODS members. That is the first issue. Today most of the pits are closed—I think that only two are open—and industrial action by means of an overtime ban will have a grave effect.
My second point concerns the National Health Service. After the exchanges across the Floor of the House, I do not have to emphasise the importance of the action to be taken by nurses in the Health Service on Tuesday and Wednesday. However, it is important that everyone should have the opportunity to discuss the situation before it occurs. The other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) made an old point of mine: before something happens, it is hypothetical; when it happens, it is too delicate; and after it has happened it is too late. If Parliament cannot discuss matters of concern to the citizens of this country, people will not look to this House to articulate their anxieties.
The National Health Service strike on Wednesday is solely and simply the responsibility of the Government. Hon. Members who take this view should be able to express it and Ministers should be answerable for their responsibility in these matters.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the direct responsibility of the Government for provoking the industrial dispute in the mining industry and for the proposed strike action by nurses and others, who are being forced to take action to protect the National Health Service.
I have listened with great care to what the right hon. Gentleman said. I have to repeat what I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I have to have regard to the criteria laid down in the Standing Orders and I regret that I cannot submit his application to the House.

Birmingham Pub Bombings

Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal by the Home Secretary to recommend the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in the case of the six innocent men still standing convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.
I do so not because these men seek mercy, but because they seek justice. There is widespread concern about the case in many parts of the world and on both sides of the House. It does not matter whether one is Left or Right, Unionist or Republican; one merely has to have an elementary ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
My case is that these people are entirely innocent, that they were not involved in those or any other bombings and that they were not members of the IRA. If I thought otherwise, I should not have wasted one moment of my time pursuing this case over the past two years.
As you will know, Mr. Speaker, you ruled this case sub judice in January 1987. We were therefore not able to discuss it for 13 months. There is the possibility of an appeal to the House of Lords in the next few days and you may rule —I hope that you will not — that we then cannot discuss it until the House of Lords has dealt with it. That would mean — this is the nub of the case for allowing the House to discuss it now—that a period of two years could elapse in which we have not been able to discuss a matter that it has been open to the rest of the nation and the rest of the world to discuss over a long period. It would be quite wrong for the House to be denied the opportunity to discuss this subject.
Let me list the relevant issues. Such a debate would provide hon. Members with an opportunity to test my assertion—which I repeat—that the men responsible for these bombings are alive and well and living in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] Let us discuss that when we get to the debate. It would enable us to discuss the state of the forensic service in the light of the relevation that the main prosecution witness in this case took early retirement at the grand old age of 51 on the grounds of limited effectiveness.
It would enable us to discuss why none of the proposals of a Select Committee on miscarriages of justice, which reported to this House some years ago, have been implemented; to discuss why convictions based on uncorroborated confessions are still permitted; and to discuss the extreme difficulty of persuading British judges to admit to a mistake.
This case will not go away; it will haunt our judges and politicians until they face the fact that a tragic mistake has been made. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to give the House the opportunity to debate this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely.
the refusal by the Home Secretary to allow the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in the case of the six men still standing convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings".


Again, I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, so I cannot submit his application to the House.

School Closures (Scotland)

4 pm

Mr. Norman Buchan: I, too, wish to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
the intervention by the Prime Minister to change the legal process being followed by Strathclyde regional council in relation to school closures, thereby putting at risk the future of other schools within my constituency.
Last week we were all surprised when, in the late afternoon, regulations were tabled after the Prime Minister had first informed the headmaster of a school about them. In a letter to the headmaster of Paisley grammar school, the Prime Minister said:
Thank you for your letter of 21 January.
I emphasise the date of 21 January because I want to demonstrate that there was a sequence of events which I believe were illegally conducted, illegal in their intention and illegal in their effect, about that date. The letter was not written out of the blue by the rector, but solicited from the rector by the Prime Minister herself.
We are now told—we did not know this last week—in the words of The Sunday Times, of which the editor is Andrew Neil, a former pupil of Paisley grammar school —[Interruption.] No, this time, it was not reported by Gerry Malone; it was only in the Scottish edition—that on 21 January a meeting took place between Andrew Neil and a senior adviser at No. 10. That is corroborated by his interview in the Paisley Daily Express under the heading, "How I tapped Maggie".
Mr. Neil states:
'I was at a … lunch with a senior Downing Street figure … and he brought up the subject.
I said something should be done."'
Mr. Neil contacted the headmaster, who wrote to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in the words of The Sunday Times, "fired off" a letter to the Secretary of State who was resisting the proposals to change the regulations, presumably on the same grounds as mine, which were that it was restrospective action when a legal process was three quarters of the way through under one set of laws brought into being and carried out by the Government. The Secretary of State was resisting, so was called in on 22 January when the Prime Minister reinforced her feelings sharply to him. Rifkind got the message.
This is a gross, arbitrary, ministerial intervention in a law which was being carried out—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has had his time. He must bring his application to a conclusion.

Mr. Buchan: I shall conclude in one sentence, Mr. Speaker, perhaps with a minor subordinate clause. The intervention affected every other school in Strathclyde. For those reasons the matter is urgent and important, and was illegal.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the intervention by the Prime Minister to change the legal process being followed by Strathclyde regional council in respect of school closures, thereby putting at risk the future of schools within the Paisley, South constituency.


Again, I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, so I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Friday 29 January, the Government tabled three pages of wide-ranging, controversial, important amendments to the Local Government Bill currently under consideration in another place. The Bill was in Committee in this House from July until December, but we were not given any indication that amendments would be tabled in this way—

Mr. Speaker: Is the Bill in Committee, because if it is—

Dr. Cunningham: No, in the Lords.

Mr. Speaker: If the Bill is in the Lords, it is not a matter for me.

Dr. Cunningham: If I could pursue the matter for a moment, Mr. Speaker. The amendments give increased powers to auditors over elected councillors, so are of great importance. They could, and should, more properly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If a Bill is in the Lords, it is not a matter for me and I cannot comment or rule on it.

Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have a Local Government Finance Bill before the Commons now. The Government have tabled in the Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill, which are about the administration of local government finance. Why have the Government chosen to proceed in this way? In doing so they are preventing the House of Commons from scrutinising the proposals properly. The House is entitled to an explanation why that has been done and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Member there. If the Lords amend the Bill, it will have to come back to the House of Commons with Lords amendments, and that will be the appropriate moment to discuss it. I am sorry, but I cannot rule on this now because it is not a matter for me.

Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will agree that I rarely take the time of the House to raise points of order. Two questions arise from this. First, in proceeding in this way the Government are depriving the Commons of proper time to scrutinise these matters, so surely there must be a point of protection of hon. Members somewhere. Secondly, even setting that aside, surely it is proper for the Leader of the House — I am grateful for his presence — to give an assurance now that additional time will be provided in the Commons for the proper consideration of these matters. That is a perfectly reasonable request.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): These are matters for the usual channels at the right time.

Sir John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could possibly help some hon. Members on both sides of the House. A few years ago a Select Committee, chaired by one of my former hon. Friends who is now in the other place, made recommendations on Appeal Court decisions. It made several recommendations on the improvement in dealing with procedures where appeals had been rejected by the Court of Appeal and on how more effective justice could be brought about.
I am raising this matter because we have a narrow window in time between the decision on the Birmingham Six on Thursday and a possible appeal to the House of Lords next Monday. I hope that you may be able to help the House by thinking about this because that would enable the House, if it felt so inclined, to improve the way in which decisions are reached and to have a discussion, bearing in mind all the relevant facts from the Birmingham Six case which would otherwise be declared, properly, to be sub judice.

Mr. Speaker: Select Committees frequently make recommendations that are not debated by the House. It is a pity that they are not debated, but there has been no change in our Standing Orders in that regard.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) begged to ask leave to adjourn the House under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss the case of the six men who were found guilty, by a jury, of the bombings in Birmingham. Page 361 of "Erskine May" deals with matters to be dealt with by a substantive motion. I understand that certain matters cannot be debated save upon a substantive motion, and that they include the behaviour or actions of judges of superior courts. The hon. Member, maybe inadvertently, said that judges were unable to own up to their mistakes, or words to that effect. I imagine that that is in direct contravention of the provisions set out in "Erskine May". If that is the case, can we have your advice on the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in the three minutes available to him, but I have ruled that I do not think that it was an appropriate matter for discussion under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Recently, and at my request, you kindly furnished me with some details of rowdyism in the House of Commons to show that rowdyism in today's Parliament is considerably less than it has been in previous ones. One of the things which became clear to me when reading that information was that the House, certainly the Opposition, tend to get more rowdy when confronted by a Government who are bloated with arrogance, as they say, who fail to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be unfair to discuss across the Floor of the House what the hon. Gentleman and I may have discussed in private.

Mr. Banks: I merely wished to say that there is potential for further rowdyism this afternoon, it would seem, because we have heard and read in the media recently a lot about a possible proposal to abolish the Inner London education authority. The Secretary of State has not seen fit to make a statement, and it is about time that we had one.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to debate this matter in the business upon which we are about to embark.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I do not wish to challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but, further to the point of order, the motion that we are to debate is not

about ILEA. It is about a timetable motion for the Education Reform Bill. Thousands of my constituents were alarmed at the news of the potential break-up of ILEA and the enormously increased costs that that would impose on them. Surely it is incumbent on the Government to make a clear statement to the House about the future of ILEA before we debate the timetable motion, which has nothing to do with ILEA.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are today being invited to vote for a motion which would curtail debate on the Education Reform Bill, one of the provisions of which would allow what Conservative Members call the opting out of London boroughs from ILEA. That is an important matter, but it is relatively small compared with the possibility of abolition of ILEA. Opposition Members and, I am sure, parents in inner London believe that if it is proposed to abolish ILEA, doing it as a side-show through this Bill after a timetable motion has been passed by the House would be utterly unacceptable. We would like a statement from the Secretary of State outlining what he proposes to do.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether ILEA is to be abolished. I accept that we are about to debate a timetable motion which is based on the fact that ILEA is not to be abolished. No doubt if anything of that kind were to occur, it would be a matter to bring to the Leader of the House for further discussions on the timetable.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friends have said about this matter. The Secretary of State, who is promoting the Education Reform Bill — GERBIL, as it is known—will change the very nature of the Bill if these proposals go through. It seems to me that the motion which suggests that we get rid of ILEA, which has been signed by more than 100 Tory Members, headed by the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), is not just about the Education Reform Bill, but about the successor to the Prime Minister. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State should make a statement and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot answer questions such as that which the hon. Gentleman is about to ask.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may not be aware of this but, during the weekend, a matter relating to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) was widely reported in the Scottish press, but that is incidental. Some of his suits were destroyed in his flat. The hon. and learned Gentleman was reported as saying:
One of the suits was made by Mr. Speaker's firm at a cost of £1,500 plus VAT.
The hon. and learned Gentleman continued:
You cannot just go up to the Speaker and ask him to make a suit for a couple of hundred pounds.
Before other hon. Members start receiving letters from constituents, can you make it clear that not all of us get such favours?

Mr. Speaker: I have nothing to do with my family business these days and I have no idea what they charge, but if what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, I shall have seriously to consider taking a second part-time job.

Education Reform Bill (Allocation of Time)

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that I have not selected his amendment.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not for a moment question your right to select or not select any amendment. However, the timetable motion was tabled at 9 am on Friday. Hon. Members therefore had five and a half hours in which to table their own amendments. As there were not necessarily many hon. Members here on Friday, we are in some difficulty.
Can the intentions of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, which were expressed last Thursday, be instilled into the motion? Whatever the intent may be, unless the House give, an instruction in the motion, there is no assurance that the intent will be carried out. The intent may be the wish of a whole host of hon. Members, but unless there is an instruction, the Business Sub-Committee could take whatever action it wanted. Would you therefore accept a manuscript amendment which would ensure that the intent of the Leader of the House is not an intent but an instruction?

Mr. Speaker: I have no authority to accept manuscript instructions. They must go down on the Order Paper by way of a motion.

Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you know me well enough to know that I would never suggest that you should accept a manuscript instruction. I hoped that you would accept a manuscript amendment stating that an instruction be given to the Chairman of the Standing Committee that is considering the Education Reform Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just what I have said the hon. Gentleman cannot do. I cannot comment upon a manuscript amendment until I have seen it, and I have not seen this one. But the hon. Gentleman cannot move an instruction by way of a manuscript amendment. That must be by a motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you assist the House, as Speakers sometimes do, by making it clear whether you have not chosen this amendment for debate because it is out of order or because you have exercised your discretion as to whether to accept the amendment, although it is in order? Members of the former Procedure Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), are very concerned that their recommendation should apply in this case, if it is in order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, is a great expert on procedure and he well knows that Mr. Speaker is never required to give reasons for his selection or non-selection of amendments. Since he has asked, however, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is in order and it will be perfectly in order for the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) to canvass the contents of it during the debate.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very important

matter, and I am sure that the hon. Members for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) will wish to discuss it with you after the debate. Are we riot again in the difficulty with which we have been faced repeatedly in the past few months? A report of a Select Committee of the House — in this case, the Procedure Committee — has not been debated and the matters contained in it, which would ultimately have been transformed into resolutions of the House, have not been discussed. Therefore, you are placed in a difficult position.
The Procedure Committee is in a special position. Its reports should be debated immediately they have been published. If they are not, you will have exactly the same problems in the future.

Mr. Speaker: I have already told the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) that I regret that the reports of the Select Committees are not debated, but until the House agrees a change in the Standing Orders, I am bound by the present Standing Orders. I have no discretion in that respect.

Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you cast your mind back—not as long as I can, but you can go back some time — to previous timetable motions on the Order Paper in which the exact division of times was stated? We decided that it should be left to a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee to decide the division of time because it was better that that should be done by the people dealing with the Bill than by an instruction of the House. It used to be common for the House to give an instruction to the Business Sub-Committee. I simply want you to accept, as an amendment to the motion, a proposal for which there has been good precedent: that an instruction be given to the Committee—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just told the hon. Gentleman, who was Chairman of the Procedure Committee during the previous Parliaments, that the Standing Orders do not allow me to accept an amendment based upon an instruction. I have not yet seen his manuscript amendment. Will he please bring it to me?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee
1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 3rd March 1988.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 3rd March may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 4th March.

Report and Third Reading
2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than


the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Motion under Standing Order No. 20: extra time
7. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion.

Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;


and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal
12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Education Reform Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.


This is the first timetable motion that I have moved, but I am pleased to say that it is also the most generous motion for 20 years.
The House will need no reminding of the importance of the Education Reform Bill, to which the motion would apply a timetable. The Bill represents the most far-reaching reform and improvement of our education system since the Education Act 1944. For schools, it contains provision for a national core curriculum, the control of budgets by governing bodies and head teachers, an increase in parental choice and the opportunity for state schools to opt out of local education authority control.
For higher and further education, the Bill implements proposals in the higher education White Paper by setting up a new Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and establishing a Universities Funding Council, both independent of central Government. The provisions relating to the future of the Inner London education authority take account of the special position of London.

Mr. Michael Foot: What time was devoted in the House to discussion of the 1944 Act and at what stage was a guillotine imposed?

Mr. Wakeham: The answer is 60 hours, which is way less than half, but no guillotine motion was moved.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does it not worry the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House of Commons, that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has been reduced to saying, in relation to clause 94, that it pins its hopes on the House of Lords? Is it not deeply unsatisfactory from the point of view of the House of Commons that that committe should believe that its only hope is in the House of Lords rather than in the guillotined set-up of this House?

Mr. Wakeham: We are moving the timetable motion now to ensure that those important matters are properly discussed in Committee. They are relevant matters and they will be discussed.
The Bill will benefit pupils, parents, teachers, head teachers, governors and those working in higher education. We believe that it will help to provide higher standards in academic and technical subjects, greater freedom for schools and colleges to be run by those who know and use them and greater choice for all in the education system. It is a demonstration of our positive and comprehensive approach in this area.
Of course, our proposals have been known for some time. Our 1987 manifesto, published in May last year, said:
the time has now come for school reform
and set out the policies that I have just outlined.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for reminding us of what was in the Conservative party manifesto. What it did not mention was the abolition of the Inner London education authority. Since the Opposition attitude to the guillotine motion will be very much influenced by the future, or non-future, of ILEA, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now whether the Government will table an amendment in Committee to abolish ILEA?

Mr. Wakeham: No decision has been taken on a change of policy on ILEA, so that is a hypothetical question. If such a decision was made, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would make a statement to

the House. As for the guillotine motion, if a new factor of major importance arose, it could be discussed through the usual channels. I give that undertaking now.
The Government made it clear during and after the election campaign that we intended to consult widely on the proposed reforms.

Mr. Jack Straw: The Leader of the House said that a statement on ILEA would be made to the House. For how long must London's children and parents wait? Will there be a statement this week, or will this vacillation continue week after week?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give an undertaking that there will be a statement. I said that there will be a statement if there is a change in policy. Until there is a change in policy, the question of a statement is hypothetical.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has issued no fewer than 13 consultation papers, distributing 10,000 copies to interested bodies and sending out more than 100,000 further copies on request.
It has been suggested that insufficient time was allowed for consultation. Nevertheless, about 17,000 responses were received and considered before the Bill was introduced on 20 November last year, and we have made it clear that that was only the initial phase of consultation. The thousands of responses that have come in since the Bill started its passage have in no way missed the opportunity to influence our thinking.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the contents of the Bill were widely debated during last year's general election, and that there could be no broader consultation than that?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point well. My right hon. Friend and his colleagues are holding a number of discussions with organisations wishing to make representations.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the consultations and representations that have been received since the last given date will be published and made available for us to read in the Library?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall have to ask my right hon. Friend to deal with the detail of that when he comes to wind up.
These discussions and consultations are part of a continuing process that began more than nine months ago.
In addition to the great debate in the country at large, the proposals are subject to detailed scrutiny inside Parliament. Consideration of the Bill so far in Standing Committee is evidence of that. More than 88 hours of Committee have so far been devoted to the first 43 clauses, and another 104 clauses are yet to be considered.
I welcome the careful attention that the Bill has received so far, but I am concerned that sufficient consideration be given to all parts of this large and wide-ranging Bill. For the moment, the Standing Committee is still debating part I of the Bill; parts II and III, however, contain provisions for higher and further education, and on ILEA, which I believe the House would wish to be considered no less carefully than our proposals on the national curriculum, the delegation of responsibility and the establishment of grant-maintained schools. But that consideration must be balanced against our commitment to ensure that the legislation is enacted this session.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Would the Leader of the House agree that this Bill is the same size as three normal Bills? I believe the right hon. Gentleman said that 40 clauses had been debated in 88 hours; is not a rate of two hours per clause pretty good going?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not complaining about the rate of progress; I am endeavouring to ensure that the Bill is properly discussed right the way through in Committee.
This is a classic example of the need for a constructive timetable—

Mr. Straw: I am pleased to hear that the Leader of the House is not complaining about the rate of progress. Usually, the only reason for a guillotine is complaints about the rate of progress. Now that we have cleared away any suggestion of filibustering by the Opposition, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, at no stage, Government Whips came to the Opposition to discuss arrangements for the Bill to be discussed without the need for a guillotine?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not suggesting that there has been any filibustering. The purpose of my speech is to explain why I believe that a constructive timetable motion is necessary. I brought it forward, not to prevent filibustering in Committee—I am not accusing anyone of that—but to ensure proper, measured discussion of all parts of a complex and important Bill.
In devising the motion, I have in mind also the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his colleagues on the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament: that the introduction of a timetable motion too late in the Committee stage can lead to inadequate consideration of a Bill's later clauses. Although you, Mr. Speaker, have not selected the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, I recognise the concerns behind it, which is why the motion has been proposed now rather than later and is so generous in its provisions for further debate.
If the Committee continues to sit each week for 18 hours, which is about the number of hours that it has done so far, there is a prospect of another 90 hours. Of course, it could sit for longer if it wished. I am sure that, in the spirit of my hon. Friend's amendment, the Business Sub-Committee will be concerned to allocate time in such a way as to ensure adequate scrutiny of all the remaining parts of the Bill. As many of the provisions in the remaining clauses are consequential or supplementary, I believe that the Business Sub-Committee will have considerable scope for manoeuvre. In addition, there will be three days of debate on the Floor of the House on Report and Third Reading.
It is perhaps worth pausing here to reflect that the time devoted to this Bill is more than double that for the Education Bill which became the 1944 Act. The Committee stage of that Bill discussed about 122 clauses and six lengthy schedules, and was conducted in only 14 sittings, lasting about 60 hours in total. In an interesting passage from his memoirs Lord Butler said:
the beauty of the 1944 Bill was that it would keep the parliamentary troops thoroughly occupied, providing endless opportunity for debate, without any fear of breaking up the Government.
So those who cavil at the time provided for this Bill by the motion should bear in mind that the 1944 Bill was

considered in full in less than half the time that this one will be—by a House that was deliberately being kept occupied by the Government of the day.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Leader of the House agree that the fundamental difference between this Bill and the 1944 Act is that there was agreement on both sides about the main principles of that measure, whereas there a fundamental disagreement about the way in which this Bill will split our education service?

Mr. Wakeham: I think the hon. Gentleman's memory of history is shaky. He may not have been alive in 1944, but if I recall aright, the 1944 Act's religious clauses, in particular, were controversial. In any case, there is a fundamental difference, in that this timetable motion allocates twice as much time as before—

Ms. Armstrong: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, not only were the divisions about the religious parts of the Bill not across party lines, but there were two full years of consultation before the 1944 Bill was written and presented? This Bill has had such short consultation that, day by day in Committee, the Minister has to change what is on the face of it because it has not been properly thought through.

Mr. Wakeham: The Bill is controversial, but so was the 1944 Bill; indeed, so was the 1976 Education Bill, when the distinguished father of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) was at the Dispatch Box moving the guillotine motion. The amount of time that the motion makes available for the Committee stage, together with the Report stage and Third Reading, shows that it is not our intention to cut short debate on this matter. Rather, our purpose is to meet the anxiety expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that another place might have the opportunity to say that major issues had not been fully debated in the House.
To ensure that all parts of the Bill receive parliamentary scrutiny, the motion—like previous timetable motions—includes provision for allocating the time in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House for Report and Third Reading by reference to a Business Sub-Committee and a Business Committee. That seems to me the key to the sensibly weighted consideration of the rest of the Bill, giving the chance for those who are experienced in these matters and, in the case of the Sub-Committee, for those who are most closely acquainted with the Bill's provisions, to discuss the timing and divide the available time appropriately between clauses.
I commend the motion to the House, in the belief that it represents a realistic way to debate the Education Reform Bill, a measure keenly awaited by pupils and parents alike. Although the House may he sharply divided on its substance, I hope that we can agree on the arrangements to give proper time for discussing all the Bill's provisions. I suggest consideration of the words a Labour Back Bencher in the debate on the timetable motions in 1976:
Everybody in the House wants to elevate standards … But doing better does not necessarily mean talking and sitting longer".—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1640.]
That Back Bencher is now the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the Leader of the Opposition. I share those views, and I hope that his party does, too.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Leader of the House accept that the main effect of a timetable motion is the protection of Ministers? It enables them not fully to reply to debates because they can play for time when they know that a timetable motion applies. The right hon. Gentleman will have read our proceedings in Committee. Does he not accept that Ministers were repeatedly under pressure before the guillotine came down? In future they can simply wait until the guillotine drops, and not reply to the difficult issues in the debate.

Mr. Wakeham: When I read through proceedings in Committee, I found examples of Opposition amendments that were withdrawn when the position was explained by Ministers. I believe that we have allocated the right amount of time.

Mr. Frank Dobson: If one forgot that the Leader of the House is a former Tory Chief Whip, one might almost be convinced by his pleas that this timetable motion is intended to slow down the precipitate progress of the Bill in Committee. That was the impression that he tried to create.
The guillotine has a long and not-too-good history for those who invented it. Its inventor had his head cut off by his own infernal machine. It is worth remembering that from a legislative point of view there was a little of that effect the last time the House considered a guillotine motion. The last such motion was to shorten debate on the Scottish poll tax Bill. I do not know how to express in a semi-Latinate phrase the effect of losing one's seat. It is clearly not decapitation, but whatever it is, that was the fate that befell many of the right hon. Gentleman's friends in Scotland as a result of the previous guillotine.
We should not blame the Leader of the House for the motion, because the person to he blamed is the Secretary of State for Education and Science. His dreadful Bill and his dreadful way of dealing with it have led to the timetable motion. I have observed since I have been in the House the progress of the Secretary of State. It seems that he has got on largely by fawning and flattery. He fawns upon the Prime Minister and flatters himself. Not content with flattering himself, he also gets no fewer than 38 press officers in his Department to flatter him if he is feeling a bit down.
The Secretary of State flatters himself most when he asks us to compare his Bill with the Education Act 1944. Such a comparison is not valid. The 1944 Act was the product of lengthy consultation, widespread public and professional if not religious agreement, idealism, experience and hope. The present Bill is the product of consultation so short and secretive as not to be worthy of the name. Far from commanding public and professional agreement, it is opposed in whole or in part by practically everyone who has expressed a point of view. It springs from cynicism and malice towards the public education system by Ministers who underfund it, abuse it and scarcely ever use it.

Mr. Martin Flannery: There is one other outstanding difference between the 1944 Act and the Bill. It is that the Bill fundamentally destroys the 1944 Act and destroys many other things.

Mr. Dobson: I am sure that we all recognise the difference between a positive and a negative measure.
After considerable progress in Committee and no attempt to reach an agreed timetable for the Bill's further progress, and when a major departure from the Tory election manifesto over the Inner London education authority is daily rumoured, we are asked to accept a guillotine to shorten proper consideration. The future of our children's education deserves such further consideration even if the Bill scarcely does.
If, in his self-flattering mood, the Secretary of State craves a comparison with the 1944 Act, let us compare the time and effort given to the progress of that Act through the House. The House will not need reminding that in 1944 our country was involved in a united struggle to survive and then to overthrow the racist, murdering regime of Adolf Hitler. One might think that that was no time for modest stillness and humility.
However, in 1944 the Commons found time, even in the weeks leading up to the Normandy landings, to devote no less than 19 whole days on the Floor of the House to the Education Bill. It received two days on Second Reading—the period that we asked for on this Bill and which the Government refused. It received 14 full days in Committee on the Floor of the House, one and a half clays on Report and a further one and a half days on Third Reading, plus a day in Committee upstairs on the issue of recruitment.
How different that is from the legislative life of our own dear Secretary of State. In this as in every other aspect, the present Secretary of State compares unfavourably with his Tory predecessors.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I should like to put the historical record straight. In 1944, the Labour party supported the Butler Act. All that legislative time was necessary to appease the Tory Right, which wanted fees, and the churches. The Opposition view now is a tremendous change of scene.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated the difference between the proposition that was before the House in 1944 and the one that is before the House now. The 1944 Bill commanded the general assent of the people and the politicians. The one before the House today does not.
If we compare the Secretary of State with his predecessors, we find that even Sir Keith Joseph and the Prime Minister occasionally allowed educational considerations rather than party prejudice to influence their judgment. That is not the case with the present Secretary of State. Ambitious and spiteful, he uses his high office to pursue his personal ambition to be the next Tory party leader and to commit vindictive acts against those who run our schools.
The reasons to reject the guillotine motion are many and powerful and have a direct bearing on the schooling of children all over Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will deal with those matters in his usual cogent and trenchant manner. The refusal by the Secretary of State to make clear what he intends to do about the future of ILEA is itself sufficient reason to throw out the motion.
As it stands, the Bill proposes — I quote from the 1987 Tory election manifesto, that sacred text—
In the area covered by the ILEA where entire borough councils wish to become independent of the LEA"—
that is a spelling mistake—


they will be able to submit proposals to the Secretary of State requesting permission to take over provision of education within their boundaries".
As I shall explain, that is bad enough, but in the past few weeks we have had much publicised statements by the right hon. Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) advocating the abolition of ILEA. More recently we have heard leaks, either from the Secretary of State or from some of his 38 press advisers, to the effect that the Government have capitulated to pressure.
Whatever the arguments for or against that course, the abolition of ILEA would be in scale and complexity one of the greatest educational reorganisations since the second world war. It would involve the dismemberment of a unitary authority providing for 280,000 children, 170,000 college students and more than 250,000 people in adult education. To break ILEA into 13 constituent parts, each supposed to be capable of providing an education service partly within its own boundaries and partly through arrangements with its neighbours, would be a task of the utmost complexity, requiring careful thought and massive preparation. It cannot possibly be done by a few amendments to the Bill in Committee. Any attempt to do so would be an insult to parents in inner London and a deliberate blow to the educational opportunities of their children, For us, it would be a legislative nightmare.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I shall recall for the hon. Gentleman, in case he cannot recall, that remarks similar to his were made when the abolition of the Greater London council was being debated in the House. As everybody knows, the GLC is not now missed at all. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that the GLC was as full of bureaucracy and more difficult to break into than the Kremlin. Surely ILEA cannot be described in any lesser terms.

Mr. Dobson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is inventing quotations. He ought to check, and if he does he will find that I was quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), and that what I said he said was not what the hon. Gentleman said I said.
The present arrangements for ILEA became —[Interruption.] I said that the housing department of the GLC—under the Tories, I might point out—was the slowest bureaucracy this side of the Kremlin, and I was quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East.
The present arrangements for ILEA became law in the Local Government Act 1985. The system that the Secretary of State now proposes to change is the very one that he steered through the House. Why, then, has he changed his mind? Setting aside such base considerations as the salary, status and chauffeur-driven car that go with continuing to be Secretary of State, it may be because, despite all the Tory gerrymandering in the ILEA elections in 1986, Labour won control in a landslide, with the Tories receiving less that one third of the votes.
Over the whole period of the present Government, ILEA has been subjected to carping criticism, constant interference, threats, intimidation and, above all, cuts in Government grants. For the past eight years, ILEA has not received a penny piece from central Government towards the cost of running its schools. I challenge the Government's right to abolish ILEA, or even to change it.

They do not pay anything towards it; they do not send their children to its schools; they know little or nothing about it; and they have no mandate from the people of inner London who would be affected.
No one can claim a mandate for the abolition of ILEA, because no one has put the proposition in an election. Certainly, as far as I know, no such proposition has featured in the election addresses of the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford, the Dastardly and Muttley of the present campaign.
As I have explained, the official manifesto of the Tory party spoke of individuals being allowed to opt out if their councils unanimously decided on that option. At the last general election, faced with that proposition, only 36 per cent. of inner Londoners voted Tory, while 41 per cent. voted Labour and 22 per cent. voted for the rest. More than six out of every 10 inner Londoners rejected any interference with the ILEA.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Is the hon. Gentleman putting it forward as a general proposition that no Government should bring forward a measure which was not in their election manifesto? If so, I think that he had better look back at his own record on some of the measures that he supported under the last Labour Government.

Mr. Dobson: There is a pathetic shortage of accuracy on the Conservative Benches. I have never sat in the House in government, so I can accept no responsibility for anything that has gone before. But for the chairman of the Tory party — who masterminded the last election campaign, and sat at press conferences saying there would only opting out of London borough. — to lead a campaign to destroy ILEA seven or eight months later is the wildest humbug. No doubt we can expect more from the right hon. Gentleman. I understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that "hypocrisy" is out of order.
The Government talk about giving power to parents, but that is the last thing that they intend to do in inner London. I do not have a lot of time for opinion polls—[interruption.] I say the same when the polls are favourable. All the opinion polls, including those commissioned by the Tory boroughs, show ILEA to be popular with the people of inner London, and even more popular with the parents. It is more popular with the people who know most about it, and who entrust their children's education to it.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not. I do not think that hon. Members representing the far west of Wales should intervene on a matter relating to inner London. They can do their voting.
It is worth noting that, of six representatives on ILEA from the Tory boroughs which want to opt out, half are Labour. There has not even been a vote of confidence there. The three Tory boroughs — Westminster, Kensington and Wandsworth — which say that they want to opt out never put that option in their borough election manifestos, so they have no endorsement either.
In September last year, Wandsworth council held a poll. To its discomfiture, the poll showed that more than three quarters of parents who sent their children to ILEA schools were satisfied, and that, among secondary school


parents, satisfaction was higher than the national average. If the Tories want to talk about parental choice, they should perhaps remember that, despite all the bad publicity, more children from outer London are sent by their parents to ILEA schools than go the other way.
Let us take Barnet, part of which is represented by the Prime Minister. Parents of no fewer than 780 children from Barnet so recognised the superiority of the education provided by ILEA that they sent their children from Barnet to ILEA schools. Even if we allow for children going from the ILEA area to Barnet schools, the net flow into ILEA was 332 children. Parents are voting with their feet.
What, then, is this education authority of which parents approve and the Tories do not? It has a duty to provide an education service for inner London. It faces enormous problems. It contains several of the most deprived local authority areas in England. If we take the Department of the Environment's own measures of deprivation, the average level of deprivation for the ILEA area as a whole, even including such places as Hampstead, Dulwich, Chelsea and Blackheath, is worse than that of any other education authority. Rather like the Metropolitan police, ILEA faces extra problems, incurs extra costs and, on crude calculations of performance, appears to compare unfavourably with other authorities in other parts of the country.

Mr. Tracey: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could guide the House on whether the material that the hon. Gentleman is using is strictly relevant to the timetable motion? Surely he is making the speech that he might make on Report or Third Reading.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman's material is perfectly relevant to this wide debate.

Mr. Dobson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Apparently we have another volunteer for the Chair.

Madam Deputy Speaker: There is no vacancy.

Mr. Dobson: Good. We are all delighted to hear it. Even the Government ought to recognise that, when they made ILEA the subject of a special report by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, the inspectors' conclusion was, roughly speaking, that it faced major difficulties, but — all things considered — was coping reasonably well. When Tories talk of concern about ILEA's cost and standards, they are usually repeating what some other Tories have said. When the Tory yobboes attack ILEA, it is perhaps understandable that they should know so little that they can only repeat one another's propaganda. But that is no excuse for a Secretary of State.
As the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors have recognised, ILEA has responded to its problems and challenges with a series of initiatives that have been commended by Tory Ministers, and recommended by them to other education authorities. Those initiatives include the appointment of parent governors; delegating some financial responsibility to governing bodies; the London record of achievement, providing all school leavers with a folder of work and achievements to show to employers; the SMILE mathematics scheme, which enables children to progress at different speeds according to their ability—and, at the same time, helps to monitor

the performance and progress of every pupil; the extension of work experience arrangements with employers; and, most recently, the London Compact with major firms in an effort to guarantee jobs to school leavers. The Hargreaves, Thomas and Fish reports, analysing other problems and recommending further initiatives, have generated interest and acclaim far beyond the boundaries of inner London.
The authority, to its eternal credit, has taken steps to counter racism and sexism in its schools and colleges. Those initiatives have been mocked and vilified by people who either deny that racism and sexism exist or, worse still, recognise that they exist, but are not prepared to do anything about them. Such initiatives should have been welcomed by the Secretary of State, because they are vital if we are to achieve a fair and decent society. They are rational efforts by the authority to address real problems faced by real children and young people in inner London. They should not be dismissed in the way in which they have been.
Of course there are problems in ILEA schools. Of course improvements are needed. As a parent of children who have all gone to ILEA schools, I do not need any Tory Members to tell me that. Least of all do I need to be told of ILEA's problems by Tory Members who send their children to private schools.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are discussing a timetable motion. The normal debate for a timetable motion concerns why and whether there should be a timetable. It is not to debate a single issue within the education sphere within or without the Bill. Surely: t is whether or not we should have a timetable. The single issue is not even in the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The House and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) do not need any instruction from any other hon. Member. The hon. Member should be allowed to get on with his speech.

Mr. Dobson: No doubt the hon. Gentleman would be another applicant for the Chair, should a vacancy ever arise.
I certainly do not want to hear that the Inner London education authority, which spends around £2,000 a year on each secondary school pupil, is overspending. I do not want to hear that charge from rich existing or former Cabinet Ministers who send their children to private schools and spend up to three times as much on their children. Between them, Cabinet Ministers have more than 50 children over 11 years of age, and only two of them did not go to fee-paying schools.
Tory Members' ignorance of the Inner London education authority shows in practically their every utterance. Not long before the 1987 election, the then junior Education Minister, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), visited a primary school in Euston in my constituency. When the staff referred to hotel children, he thought that they meant children whose parents owned and ran hotels. He did not know of the squalid bed-and-breakfast hotels into which his Government had forced the homeless and their children.
Such children are numbered in thousands. The main parental choice that their parents would like is a home of


their own. They are denied that choice by a Government whose latest White Paper on housing did not even mention the word "homeless".

Mr. George Walden: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's remark, the intervention that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was well justified. If the hon. Gentleman is reduced to retailing such inaccurate and absurd tittle tattle, he should sit down now.

Mr. Dobson: It is absurd, but I have no reason to believe that it is inaccurate. I know the veracity of the people who told me.
Another charge that is made against ILEA is that it is over-bureaucratic. There is some truth in that statement, but if its administration is so bad, why has the Secretary of State given a new top job to Mr. William Stubbs, the man who heads the bureaucracy? It was recently described by the right hon. Member for Chingford as an overgrown, overpriced underperforming monster. Surely the chief custodian of such a monster would be unfit for an important job that was newly created by his right hon. Friend.
Why is it that the right hon. Member for Chingford and his former arch-enemy in the Cabinet — so we understand—the right hon. Member for Henley, have launched a compaign to abolish ILEA? It is partly because it provides a defenceless whipping boy on whom they can demonstrate their Tory credentials to a waiting world.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way. I have given way several times.

Mr. Greenway: This relates to a school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Dobson: All right, I shall give way.

Mr. Greenway: Perhaps the hon Gentleman will concede that I have some knowledge of ILEA, having been deputy head of a comprehensive school in his constituency, having taught in ILEA for 23 years, and having sent three children to ILEA schools. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Williams Stubbs has regularly written about the level of administration within ILEA? He has been concerned about getting resources into teaching spheres and about administration. Is it not unfair for the hon. Gentleman to make such remarks about the retiring education officer?

Mr. Dobson: I have made no criticism whatever of Mr. Stubbs. The hon. Gentleman should have noticed that. It is possible to mention people without criticising them. If people can understand them, my criticisms were directed at the Secretary of State. No doubt they will be directed by the right hon. Member for Chingford at the Secretary of State if he has appointed the person who looks after that monster to a job which, on the standards set by the right hon. Gentleman, he does not seem up to. But that is not my view of Mr. Stubbs.[Interruption.]
The interventions by the right hon. Members for Chingford and for Henley cannot really be the result of pressure or, indeed, interest from their local electors in Henley or Chingford. There is another reason. They have

realised that the election commitment to let boroughs opt out is a stupid, ill-thought-out, costly blunder. Even the three Tory boroughs that have said that they want to opt out have now asked for outright abolition. If they had confidence in their abilities, one would have thought that they would rather like ILEA to remain in existence so that, by comparison, they could demonstrate the superiority of their new service. They have now looked in detail at the consequences of opting out and have realised that it would be an educational, organisational and financial nightmare.
What is the reaction of the educational vandals who, seven months ago, said that opting out was a great idea? When the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State said that it was a good idea, the right hon. Member for Chingford did not intervene or demur in any way. What did the Government do? They now say, "We were wrong. We got it wrong." Do they abandon it? Not they. Their scheme will not work. Now, to cover their embarrassment, the education of all our children in inner London must be put in turmoil. That is not right, and they know it.
If the Government really want to help the children of inner London, they should drop the current clauses in the Bill and abandon any idea of abolishing ILEA. They should abandon any further threats to its future. They should let it have the resources that it needs to provide a decent education for all our children in inner London, despite the poverty, homelessness, language difficulties, overcrowding and unemployment that beset and threaten so many of them and their parents. If the Government were sincere in their claims to be interested, that is what they would do.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I appreciate the trouble to which the hon. Gentleman has gone to make a speech that is related not to the Bill but to his assumption about what the Secretary of State may or may not decide to do. Having listened to all that the hon. Gentleman has said, my right hon. Friend will now be wholly convinced.

Mr. Dobson: If the former Secretary of State for the Environment and for Defence thinks that the fate of 280,000 children in inner London should depend on a flippant remark by him or a speech by me, he is treating them with even more contempt than I thought.
If we listen to Tories who talk about reorganisation, we should remember their track record. Look at what they did to the National Health Service, with its never-ending reorganisations. As Conservatives used to know, changes consume vast amounts of resources in ways that do not benefit patients or pupils. Instead of being able to get on with their jobs, staff at all levels must spend time protecting their jobs or even having to reapply for the jobs that they already have.
That will happen if ILEA is broken up. Where is the evidence that 13 separate administrations, each with elaborate bureaucracies to cope with cross-borough issues, will be simpler and cheaper than one authority? I suppose that it might seem so in Kensington, which has only one secondary school. But what sort of parental choice is that?
The Inner London education authority and its future deserve to be dealt with properly, carefully and fairly, with proper consideration by all hon. Members, if they could possibly turn their minds to doing so.
The law permits the Secretary of State to conduct a public and open review of the functions of ILEA and then determine its future. We believe that it would be wholly


wrong for the future of ILEA to be determined either by the opt-out clauses of the Bill or by late amendments by the Secretary of State to abolish it altogether. We believe that it will be inappropriate to support the motion unless we know what the Secretary of State's intentions are. Is he suggesting, on the basis of the motion, that he can come forward with a proposition by way of an amendment, which would receive one and a half days' attention, and that the future of the education authority should be determined in that short period? We believe that that would be wrong and wicked, which is why we urge the House to reject the motion.

Mr. John Biffen: You, Madam Deputy Speaker, reminded the House that this is a wide debate. I hasten to assure you that my speech will be short.
A few months ago, I was flushed out of the usual channels. Since then, I have acquired all the innocence of a born-again Back Bencher. It is in that spirit that I approach the motion.
I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State well with the Bill. It will be a landmark in Tory education policy and he will follow the traditions of the late Lord Butler. He will be well equipped to counter the partisan remarks of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), which were made none the more agreeable by their length.
The Bill is a most ambitious piece of legislation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was most amiable in saying that he was not chiding the Standing Committee with lethargy and that its progress has been quite reasonable. On any rational basis, there was no way in which the balance of the Bill could be secured without a timetable. He assured us that it was the most generous timetable for 20 years. My right hon. Friend looked across the Chamber and saw the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who in one day produced more timetables than most of us dreamed possible. My right hon. Friend said that he was moving in the direction of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), and I hope that that is so. I shall say a few words about that in due course.
Although we go through something of a ritual when we produce timetables, we know perfectly well that for every timetable that, we have in this Chamber about legislation within our control, we give some moral authority to the other place to partake in the legislative process. I have never been an ardent unicameralist. I have been happy to tolerate another Chamber, as long as it could in no way compete in the national affections with what we do here. We always do the other place well when we assert our primacy and its relative role.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), observed, calling in aid the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, that there was anxiety that legislation could be properly considered in the other place only on the basis of this timetable. I hope that closer examination will persuade the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to move a little nearer to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said.
This is not the only occasion that we shall be having a timetable in this Parliament. Very often, consideration of a timetable is related to the known issues and conventions, with which we are well equipped and well informed. However, there is one more recent development that is

impelling the direction to timetables — the fragility of legislation when confronted by judicial review. Every Government Department, to some extent or another, is anxious about this issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a bold and friendly exterior. I am sure that he never gives a moment's thought to the Bill being mauled in the courts. I do not think that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Social Services will be quite so heroic about these matters.
We know prefectly well that the Committee stage is no adequate means of making legislation proof against judicial review. If that is to be undertaken, it must be done with the skill and pervasiveness with which the legislation is treated in the Department concerned. That is why the legislative process, in respect of certain aspects of legislation, means that more time will be taken before legislation is produced.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Biffen: I think that that is a fairly innocuous observation. I see that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the next leader of the as yet unnamed—I am sorry — the Social and Liberal Democratic party, is acquiescing, which encourages me. The hon. Member for Linlithgow should not spoil it.
Given the almost universal political pressures to produce a programme that is politically acceptable, there will be pressures on the work that the House will do in dealing with Bills if they have to be better prepared before they receive their First Reading.
That is why I welcome very much the gesture initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. He (IA so in an amiable way, but discovered that the wicket is rather like a Pakistani one. He came expecting to play and found that, on the whole, it was better to retire not out. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will persevere.
I hope that every time we have a guillotine motion the House will use the occasion to talk about guillotines. Much as I have an interest in ILEA, which has burgeoned in the past 90 minutes, I am still concerned about the procedures of the House. I am concerned about the means of reconciling the interests of the House with those of the Executive within our procedures, knowing that they are far from perfect and knowing that recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure have not received the warm embrace that it might have hoped for from previous Leaders of the House.
When my right hon. Friend replies to the debate I hope that he will give a welcome to the initiative shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and I hope that this debate will run and run.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who made some points that I hope others will study and read with interest, and with which I fully associate myself in terms of the need to reform the procedures for introducing legislation and then dealing with it. He made those points more elegantly and perhaps with more force than most, if not all, other hon. Members.
I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the reliance that is being placed on judicial review as the mechanism by which mistakes can be corrected is


dangerous for the House and damaging to the process of our democracy. That, allied with the secrecy that now operates and surrounds government, makes it very difficult for the ordinary people of this country, who will be affected by this legislation, effectively to exercise that option.
The second point that the right hon. Gentleman made concerned the more careful preparation of our legislation. There is a serious case, with complicated legislation which will have a considerable impact, for a procedure that will build a sense of consensus of the sort that was built for the 1944 Education Act, although in different circumstances and perhaps with a different intention. If that were the case, the process of the Committee stage would be more effective.
It has been a pleasure to serve on the Committee. Although our debates have been strenuous and tough, the sense of good humour and accommodation has been a revelation and joy to us all.
There is a danger that the motion will devolve into a debate on ILEA, for reasons that we can all understand. Therefore, I shall say a word or two about the guillotine. It is natural and proper that there is a sense of outrage whenever a guillotine is introduced. That is not surprising, because it is the procedures of the House and the role that we play that are being guillotined. It is proper that the Opposition should feel outraged. Inevitably, that outrage will be synthetic to a degree. All Oppositions rage about guillotines; all Governments use them, whether or not they were previously in opposition. We must remember that, in one day in 1976, the Labour party introduced no fewer than five guillotines.
There is genuine concern about the Bill, for several reasons. Through the Bill, we place in the hands of the Secretary of State a range of powers–182 in all—that are devastating in their effect. I do not share the overheated phraseology used by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about this Secretary of State. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman will use most of those powers that the Bill will give him—

Mr. Dobson: Why take them?

Mr. Ashdown: We shall argue about that later.
I do not think that the Secretary of State will use all those powers in the ways about which we are naturally suspicious, but there can be no doubt that our job is to look at legislation in terms not of the present incumbent but of potential powers for people to use in the future. The powers granted in the Bill are draconian in extent. Who is to say that they will not be used by those who follow this Secretary of State, whether of the Conservative party or of another?
I do not understand why Conservative Members cannot see that the very precedents which they establish in this Bill and in others—they could be used by a Labour Government or a Government of my persuasion, should one follow this Conservative Government — are the mechanisms which would so turn education and so corrupt the education process that they would squeal, justifiably, about the effect. A decent Opposition must look to the potential of the powers that are concealed as well as to the person who will exercise them.
We must be relatively grateful for small mercies. Although I object to the timetable, it is relatively generous. How much better would it be if we dealt with these matters on a more structural basis and if there were timetabling of serious and important Bills such as this from the start? I do not say that because I think that hon. Members intend to filibuster. It is difficult at the start of consideration of 140-odd clauses in Committee to place an appropriate emphasis on the issues that should be taken up. Inevitably, more weight will be placed on the early clauses than should be placed, thereby perhaps neglecting later clauses.
Perhaps there is a case, in the absence of the type of reforms mentioned by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, for the House to consider timetabling and structuring from the beginning of debates on Bills such as this.

Mr. Spearing: There is a Select Committee report which advocates some of the hon. Gentleman's points. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any such proposal would entirely change the polarities in Committee relating to length of speeches and who speaks and that the Minister's attitude and attention would be revolutionised because he would know that he needed only to get the touch and he would get away? In Committee after Committee, the uncertainty in the Minister's private office and in the Department has exercised its own democratic strengths. Surely that is something to which the Select Committee on Procedure and the hon. Gentleman have not paid sufficient attention.

Mr. Ashdown: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point and am grateful to him for raising it, but that is the downside of the issue which we have discussed. It would not be beyond the wit of the House to find a suitable mechanism—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) shakes his head. If he does, I must pay attention, because he is well respected for his opinions and ability in this respect.

Mr. A. J. Beith: He was the author of the five guillotines.

Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that the right hon. Gentleman was the author of the five guillotines mentioned previously. This serious issue needs to be addressed. I am grateful that it has been given serious thought.
The guillotine is of considerable and special concern in relation to this legislation, for several reasons. There has been no attempt to filibuster, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for admitting that. The issues have been toughly debated and the speeches interesting and worth while. On an issue of this importance, surely we ought to let the Bill run its course more evidently than is allowed by the Government's move.
I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise that several times, when Opposition Members and I have approached the Government and said, "Can we structure the debate?", there has been the chilling response, "It does not really matter what clause is reached. We shall stack in the hours as hard as we can and then move the guillotine." It is not appropriate in those circumstances to move as fast as we have.
There is no doubt that, contrary to the experience of the Education Act 1944, this is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation brought forward by any Government


for the past 50 years, not even excluding the poll tax legislation. The impact will be felt for decades. What we are doing to our education system is not just a passing injustice, which will be felt for one, two, five or 10 years, when the provisions can then be repealed. It undermines the education process in a way that will be felt by the nation into the next century, until some of the worst effects can be assuaged.
I say that this is a contentious Bill not just because that is my view and that of the Opposition but because it is the view of all those who carry any weight—both producers and consumers—in education. There is not a respectable body — not even the Government's union, the Professional Association of Teachers—that supports the Bill in its entirety and does not see in it sinister and damaging proposals to which it is profoundly opposed. It is not supported even by the parents in whose names it is done, by the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations and many other parent voices —[Interruption.] I shall give way to any Conservative Member who can name a parents' organisation that agrees with the Bill.

Mr. Tracey: rose—

Mr. Ashdown: A national parents' organisation? I am certain that an occasional school here and there, with selfish interests of its own—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let me be clear. Some schools with selfish interests of their own may well be in favour of certain proposals in the Bill, but the payment will be made by the education process in the community to which they belong. One can always find selfish people who want to support legislation from which they will benefit, but is it for the benefit of the nation or of the community?

Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman is almost reducing the definition to fit in with the Association of Liberal Councils. I can name an organisation, which I believe will grow and grow — the Campaign Urging Better Education. It was launched last week in Wandsworth—[Interruption.]—with a fine speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with wholesale agreement by all parents.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) makes the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) look like a giant.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says that the hon. Gentleman makes the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) look like a giant. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) mentioned the Association of Liberal Councils. I do not claim that it is a national body which has an impact on the nation's affairs, but how much less does that apply to some organisation in Wandsworth, for goodness' sake? Let us see how this develops. We shall watch the hon. Gentleman's space with some interest.
Not a single body supports the Bill, which is deeply contentious and contains some deeply contentious items that have yet to be discussed. We are halfway through discussing opting out. As we go on, we must discuss first, for example, the city technology colleges. In a single clause, we shall discuss that proposal, which many of us regard as deeply divisive. I do not say for one second that there is not a case for considering the provision of education outside the monopoly provision of local

education authorities. There may well be a case for other bodies to think about establishing schools, provided that they fit within the admissions policy and the general education policies of the local education authority for the area, which serves the community as a whole. I do not object to that as a concept; it is well worth considering. However, the CTCs are a bird of a totally different feather. They will be damaging, and it would be inadequate to deal with that matter in such a short time.
Secondly, there is also the question of the Inner London education authority. Again, I do not pretend for a moment that there is not a serious level of concern about the operation of ILEA, nor do I pretend for a second that there is not a need for a fundamental programme of reform or that in some areas ILEA may fail and fall short of what it should be doing. Indeed, that is hardly surprising with an organisation of that size.
However, the idea that we should abolish it by stealth, which is what the Bill will do — or, as the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) would suggest, abolish it by statute—is to my mind wholly unsupportable, because ILEA is a strategic education body that looks after the City of London and the education of 1·25 million of its pupils. The truth of the matter is that both those proposals come from the same stable and are informed by the same motive—political spite. Their suggestion has nothing to do with the education of 1·25 million children in London.
If the proposals were subsequent to a review or study of the operation of ILEA and about ways in which it might be reformed, perhaps one could understand it, but they are not. Frankly, the proposals of those two right hon. Gentlemen, who are not in the Chamber, are a more stark, open and naked option of the sort that the Secretary of State wishes to put forward by stealth. The truth is that those proposals are informed by spite and represent ideological vandalism.

Mr. John Maples: If the desire of the boroughs to opt out is motivated by political spite, why does Tower Hamlets number itself among those boroughs?

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman has raised a lair point and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to put the matter on the record. What he says cannot be surprising. The Liberal administration of Tower Hamlets has made it clear that it is in favour of ILEA and wishes it to continue. However, if ILEA is not to continue because of the Government's ideological spite and if the rich boroughs then opt out, surely the hon. Gentleman realises that it would be foolish for anybody to be left in there as a rump organisation. Tower Hamlets is following that procedure simply because it has no other option. Indeed, we now understand that that applies to one or two of the Labour-controlled authorities also.
There can be no doubt that those authorities believe, as I believe, that the destruction of ILEA is motivated much more by politics than by the best interests of the pupils of London. If that were not the case, why is it that all the reforms which the Secretary of State said that he would like to see in ILEA are in his power to deliver? Indeed, the succeeding Education Acts that he has introduced have given him the reforms with which to move into Brent, Hackney and the other areas which we now hear played up as the whipping boys for the Government's intentions, but the Secretary of State has not made one move. He has


not used any of those powers to reform the education of London because he wishes to have a reason for doing what he now seeks to do out of political motivation.
Briefly and finally, the third of the proposals is, in a sense, almost the most damaging of them all, with the possible exception of opting out. The proposals for higher and further education will give the Government a direct capacity to control what goes on in our universities and higher education institutions. I suspect that the Government will hear a lot more about that. The Government's control of higher and further education strikes not just at the heart of the nature of our education system but at the nature of our democracy and of the pluralism within our system. That matter should not be discussed under the control of the guillotine.
Therefore, for those reasons, we shall certainly vote against the guillotine tonight. We believe that this legislation will be damaging, divisive, and destructive and that its effect will be felt for decades to come. Therefore, it must have proper consideration and not one which, as the guillotine will propose, will be timetabled, curtailed and far too short.

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted that part of the tradition of the House, to debate with a previous speaker, can be followed in my instance. I take up what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said when he mentioned that, on the introduction of the guillotine, there must be a sense of outrage. That sense of outrage is not shown much by the number of hon. Members attending the debate or in the structure between the usual channels. I take the hon. Gentleman back 20 years, or perhaps more, because, whenever a guillotine motion was introduced in the House then, there really was outrage. The debate was not only for half a day; it was for a whole day and the House was full. Indeed, the relationship between the usual channels was often put considerably at risk. Therefore, the outrage today is immensely synthetic compared with the past.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman go on to talk more about the Procedure Committee than about the guillotine. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take up House of Commons Paper No. 324 of the 1985–86 Session, which contains recommendations for timetabling after 121 hours of debate, with the timetabling in the hands of the members of the Committee so that they could inherently decide.
I refer in passing to the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who suggested that the effect of the threat of delay and the worry of the private office has considerable effect. I advise the hon. Gentleman that the Procedure Committee considered that fully. Our judgment was that in every Bill, in the long run, the Government have always got what they wanted. In our view it is a fallacy to think that what is said has a major effect on whether the Government give way.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Sir Peter Emery: I shall just finish my sentence.
I advise the hon. Gentleman that Governments give way on matters about which they do not really care. Governments are happy to show some movement on such

things, but on the things that they are determined to do and on the dates when they want their Bills out of Committee, every Government, of any party, have always had their way during the past 20 years.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point. I do not argue with it as a general proposition, but surely the question is how difficult it is for the Government to get their own way and whether timetabling, as his Committee suggested, would make that harder or easier. I suggest that it would not only be easier to some extent, but that it would be more predictable. Those facts combined mean that the Opposition would, by definition, lose certain powers. That applies to any Government of any political complexion and would therefore be bad for the House of Commons.

Sir Peter Emery: I have heard that argument, and I have no doubt that it will be mounted again, but I counter it by suggesting that what I wish to ensure, and what the Procedure Committee wishes to ensure, is the totality of a Bill and that all of it will be debated. That is of greater importance than nearly anything else in the consideration of this Bill and of what happens in Standing Committee.
One real worry would be the type of guillotine before us today if we did not have the assurance that has been given by the Leader of the House. Of the 104 clauses that remain to be discussed in Committee, there would be a considerable chance that between 50 and 60 of those clauses would never be debated in Committee; that we would come to the Floor of the House and they would not be debated fully here; that the Bill would then go to another place and that another place would have the right to begin saying, "We must interfere in that legislation because it has not been dealt with by the House of Commons."

Dr. Hampson: I wholeheartedly endorse what my hon. Friend says. The outrage about higher education is synthetic. There is no question but that, on a Bill of this length, the crucial higher education clauses, and especially the issue of academic freedom, would not have been reached unless my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had brought forward a speedy guillotine. I agree that such big Bills, which all Governments produce, should be formally timetabled so that the discipline of Opposition can he brought to bear on all contentious issues and Ministers cannot escape on any area.

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I assure the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that the clauses on education would have been debated because that is in the interests of the Opposition. We were keen to make progress. The Leader of the House has already said that there was no evidence of filibustering on the part of the Opposition parties. We were keen to make progress and would have continued to do so.

Sir Peter Emery: I appreciate that, but with a guillotine it is possible for the Government to stop such filibustering by organising the way in which the time is allocated afterwards. The lack of time may not be the fault of the Opposition, but the way in which the Government engineer that time. For that reason, the Procedure Committee was concerned that the allocation of time


should be settled to a greater extent by the Committee than by anybody else. That is a major factor in the presentation of the guillotine to the House.
When dealing with future guillotines, I hope that this debate will represent a move in the direction that the Government intend to continue. An amendment in the names of a number of right hon. and hon. Members much more distinguished than myself was not seen fit to be accepted by the Chair. But the wish expressed by the Leader of the House when he answered my question last Thursday was:
I intend to see that every clause of the Bill is debated in Standing Committee."—[Official Report, 28 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 489.]
Our amendment did not go as far as that major statement. Given the number of clauses, the Procedure Committee was particularly intent to ensure that all parts of the Bill could be adequately scrutinised and that every substantive proposal could be considered. The amendment that is not before the House contained direct quotations from the Procedure Committee report. There is a lot of difference between consideration of every clause and consideration of every major matter within a Bill.
I welcome what the Leader of the House has done today. We are moving towards the general consideration backed by the two reports of the Procedure Committee. That consideration was backed by a vast number of hon. Members. However, the first report was voted down by the largest turnout of Secretaries of State, Ministers, Parliamentary Under-Secretaries and Parliamentary Private Secretaries ever assembled for any vote of the last Session of Parliament, and despite the fact that that vote was on a one-line Whip. That vote represented a great achievement and was to the credit or discredit of the present President of the Council who organised it. However, we are now moving towards some degree of flexibility. Indeed, it was the flexibility of the Committee's previous report that was unacceptable to the then Government Chief Whip.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replies, I urge him to follow up the undertaking given by the Leader of the House, that every major contention—not every clause—will be debated in Committee before the Bill is reported. If that means that the Committee must sit on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, or even Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, so be it. In that way, everything could be covered. No one here would suggest that the Education Bill is not of major contention, whatever one's views. With a Bill of such importance, it would be criminally wrong of us to send part of it to their Lordships' Chamber without it having been debated in Committee in the House of Commons. I ask the Secretary of State for an assurance that would reinforce that given by the Leader of the House.
I hope that this small movement to improve the procedures of the House will be acted upon. It may not be necessary to have 80 hours—it could be less—to ensure that the whole time is reasonably organised so that we can get over the problem whereby legislation leaves this place without due and proper consideration in Committee. If this debate marks the first stage in that achievement, it will be much more important than anything to do with outrage or with most of the votes and debates on guillotine motions than we have witnessed in the past 10 or 15 years. If we move in that direction, it will be a major achievement.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I believe that we have before us the first guillotine presented to the House in this Session. This timetable motion represents an attempt to deceive the House. The Bill contains nothing less than a syllabus of deceit of parents. They are being given the impression that the Bill, when enacted, will afford them greater choice for the education of their children, more power over the schools that their children attend and higher standards of education.
However, in effect, the Bill will give a little more choice to a few parents, and in many cases, will lead to less choice for virtually all parents. In no case will it give parents any power over the boards of governors, because parents will be in a permanent minority. Because of the divisive opting-out proposals, it will be much more difficult for local education authorities to deliver higher standards of education. However, we are now being asked to limit the amount of time that we can spend debating the Bill in Committee.
As a new Member, I have found it something of a revelation to watch what happens in Committee. I have been amazed at the way in which some Conservative Members have introduced amendments, for which they have spoken most eloquently, but have then either withdrawn them, on the most feeble assurances from the Minister, or voted against the said amendments. I find that a most amazing occurrence, and I am still awaiting a reasonable explanation for it, especially as some of those hon. Members have been paid consultancy fees by organisations that have promoted those amendments.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I am not paid a consultancy fee, but there is a sensible explanation for such procedures. If someone has got an assurance from a Minister that something they have asked for on an amendment may be delivered on Report, it is naive to put that amendment to the vote, because that means it may not be called on Report. If a vote is not taken in Committee, Mr. Speaker will assume that the issue should be debated on Report, especially if the Minister has given such an assurance.

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) was right every time that has happened, I would not have bothered to mention it. However, on some occasions, Ministers have denied any possibility of an amendment being considered; at other times, they have presented 20 arguments as to why they should not consider it, and then have decided to look at it again. Hon. Members have, on occasions, been in the feeble position of voting against their own amendments.
I turn to other things that happened in Committee. One afternoon we were to debate the proposals on testing and assessment. That same afternoon, a substantial report by the task group on assessment and testing—the TGA I report—came out. We barely had the chance to look at it. We were promised a debate on testing and assessment later. However, today we know that the Bill will be guillotined. We are in the shadow of the guillotine and the time that can be given to a debate on testing and assessment must be limited. It is questionable whether we will have sufficient time to examine the report — of several hundred pages — which, in many respects, contains proposals with which the Prime Minister would not agree.
Currently, we are discussing the opting-out proposals. We have spent some time on what must be regarded as the most divisive and dangerous part of the Bill. We could spend some time on it if we were not subject to the threat of a guillotine.
It has been interesting to note how Ministers have changed their stance under questioning. I shall cite one incident in Committee that shows that it is important for us to have time to tease out of Ministers what they really mean. The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science said that the fees—perhaps I should say the voluntary contributions that parents in opted-out schools will be encouraged to pay—will not be used to pay for the staff at the school. However, after half a dozen questions we were told that if the school governors so decided, they would be able to use those voluntary contributions to finance the staff. It took some time to get a complete volte-face from the Minister. Under the pressure of a guillotine, there will not always be time to probe Ministers. They will know that they can be saved by the guillotine.
However, there are many important topics that we have not yet touched upon, such as higher and further education. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has already dwelt on the real future of ILEA, and he has explained at some length that, while we are under a guillotine, we cannot be sure which clauses and which amendments on the future of ILEA will be debated.
The Government have introduced a large number of amendments to tidy up the Bill as originally drafted. That is another important factor in our belief that there should not be a guillotine and that the measure should be debated in full, unencumbered by Government threats of a time limit.
I shall refer briefly to two parts of the explanatory and financial memorandum—the financial effects of the Bill and the effects on public service manpower—which arise in many other parts of the Bill. The Government show a lack of knowledge about what will really happen if the Bill is put into effect in its current form. The statement on the financial effects of the Bill says that some of the testing and assessment proposals will cost £33 million, but that for the rest of the Bill the financial effects will be broadly neutral, especially in regard to financial delegation. It says that, because there will be a change in administrative responsibility, any extra costs incurred in the schools will be saved within the local education authority.
Anyone who knows what happens when an organisation is attacked in such a way will realise that it is not easy to make strict comparisons of savings and losses. The Coopers and Lybrand report, sponsored by the Government, was quick to point out that it should not be imagined that financial delegation to schools will save any money. Again, we are threatened with the possibility of having insufficient time to find out exactly what will be the financial effects of the Bill.
Finally, I should like to raise the issue of public service manpower. The effects of the Bill on manpower — or perhaps it should be called personnel, as more than half the manpower is women—states:
The implementation of the national curriculum and new admission arrangements for schools may require some redeployment within planned overall teacher numbers.

That is an example of the certainty and depth of knowledge with which the Govenment have applied themselves to constructing the massive Education Reform Bill. The Opposition are certain that it will have significant effects. At one time, the Government gave us some assurances about the Bill's effects on personnel. We are still waiting for an answer. The probing questions asked in Committee received no answers from the Government.
Despite the fact that the Bill has been before the Committee, there is probably a myriad of civil servants in the Department of Education and Science trying to find out what will be the exact effects of the Bill. It is a disgrace that the Bill is to be guillotined when the Government have no confidence that they will be able to answer questions on so many aspects of the Bill regarding the future of the education service.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I know that I am not alone in speaking as a parent. It is right and proper that the voices of parents should be raised in the House about the urgency of their children's education. There is a real danger that, in regard to education in Britain we, as politicians, could be criticised for fiddling while Rome burned.
We must remember that 10 years ago Lord Callaghan began the great debate on education. His Government did very little about it. Quite a bit has been done by my Government since that time. The Labour party's efforts during those years were criticised, rightly, by Mr. John Lloyd, the editor of the New Statesman, who could hardly be described as a Conservative, when he said on 16 October:
The Left did not face up to failures, and to the manifest alarm of the mass of parents.
That is precisely what the Government are facing up to and that is why we consider that it is urgent that the reforms in the Bill should be debated and implemented as swiftly as possible.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman said that he is a parent and that there are many other parents in the House. However, does he send his children to schools within the state system of education? As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, our experience is that the people who are out to destroy the existing system of education, just as in the National Health Service, do not use it. They are paternalising and lecturing to us about our children's education while sending their children to private schools.

Mr. Tracey: I am grateful for that intervention. Both my wife and I were educated in the state sector. My wife is a member of the Inner London education authority and all four of my children are being educated in the state sector. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends often run away with the fallacy that Conservative Members are not interested in state education and are not educating their children in the state sector.
It is urgent for parents, children and employers that the reforms in the Bill should be implemented.

Mr. Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman mentioned urgency. Will he tell the House how many representations he has received from parents? I have written to every governing body in my constituency


and I have not received a single letter from any parent or governing body saying that they are in favour of the Bill or the speed with which it is being put through.

Mr. Tracey: I have received several representations from parents within my constituency and outside—[HON MEMBERS:"HOW many?"] Some tens of representations. That is a fair number for a Member of Parliament to receive. The schools in my constituency , which is in the royal borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames, are well regarded by parents because we still have a grammar school and secondary modern system that the parents fight to retain. Indeed, they recently fought a Liberal-Labour coalition on the council to ensure that the grammar schools and secondary moderns were retained. On the question of standards as a whole, I have received representations and heard from parents saying that they support the aims of the Bill.
The comparison of performance between British children and children in Germany is illuminating. We hear that nine out of 10 children leave German schools with qualifications at 16 that are matched by only four out of 10 on a comparable basis in this country. There is considerable and accepted under-motivation of children in British schools and the level of attainment is not adequate; so many parents and employers regularly speak to Members of Parliament about that. I have been present at meetings of governing bodies where employers, who have been governors of schools, have raised that point with me.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why so many national organisations and parents have written to members of the Committee opposing the Bill? I am prepared to show the hon. Gentleman the number of letters I have received opposing the Bill. Is he prepared to show me the letters he has received welcoming the Bill?

Mr. Tracey: There is no doubt that the number of representations Committee members have received—no doubt the hon. Gentleman has received the same as me have come mainly from unions and people who have been encouraged to write. My experience in inner London is that many parents and governing bodies are being whipped up to write to Committee members by ILEA. That authority says it is short of money but, as with Labour authorities that we all know so well in London, it can spend large amounts of money on producing propaganda to throw out when legislation is being discussed in the House.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if parents and governing bodies are being whipped up in response to the Bill, it is as a result of the dismay they feel at the proposals the Government are putting forward?

Mr. Tracey: My view is that the whipping up is being done by partisan politicians, particularly from the Labour party. The literature I have received as a governor of an ILEA school has been urging governors to write to the Department of Education and Science and Members of Parliament saying that the governors are out of sympathy with the legislation. That is a ridiculous use of ratepayers' money by the Inner London education authority.
The Inner London education authority was discussed at great length by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). As I pointed out at the time, I thought that the speech should have been about the

timetable motion, but he seemed to think that it was a debate on ILEA. The question of the future education of our children in inner London is critical. I believe that ILEA should be abolished and I have said that on a number of occasions over a number of years. I believe that our children in inner London are being ill-served by the political majority in county hall and I believe that the standards they could achieve are not being reached. I am sure that—

Mr. Dobson: Can the hon. Gentleman name one Tory Member of Parliament who put that proposition in his election address at the general election?

Mr. Tracey: Nobody put that precise point in their election address because the Government were being seen to move towards allowing boroughs to opt out. If the Bill continues in its present form, a few Labour boroughs will opt out. In itself, that would trigger the full abolition of ILEA. I have tabled an amendment to reduce the trigger point from eight boroughs opting out to five boroughs. However, I believe that the best possible solution would be for ILEA to be abolished at a stroke. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet will agree to that policy.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman is complaining about the political direction of ILEA. Does he not realise that his proposals and those of the Government will put the schoolchildren of Southwark, Camden and Hackney into the hands of their boroughs? Is he happy to see that happen? That seems to be about as responsible as appointing as a head teacher at a school a drunken bankrupt who is in the process of having a nervous breakdown.

Mr. Tracey: I understood that the Liberal party had some hopes of winning control of Southwark council, so I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. When faced with a choice between the policies of the Conservative party and the policies of the Labour party, the electorate may well return a Conservative authority. It will be able to compare Labour's policies with the policies that have been pursued by Conservative authorities in well-run boroughs such as Wandsworth, where there is support for opting out.
I shall now direct some remarks to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. The Times pointed out the other day that, at the "Labour Listens" exercise in Brighton, he did far more talking than listening.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the precise quotation from The Times, or is he getting yet another quotation wrong?

Mr. Tracey: I think the point made was that it was a "Labour Listens" exercise and that the hon. Gentleman did more talking than listening. By his rapid intervention just now, he has proved that he prefers to do more talking than listening.
The hon. Gentleman talked at length about ILEA. On 19 November there was a by-election in the Southfields ward of Wandsworth borough council. There was a rumour that the whole Labour Front Bench would be turning up to support the Labour candidate. As Labour Members are fair-weather politicians and it was a rather wet day, they resorted to sending only the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I cast no aspersions on what


campaigning he tried to do, but the Labour party fought that by-election on the call to vote Labour and save ILEA. In fact, the Conservative candidate considerably increased his majority and, as a result, Wandsworth continues towards opting out of ILEA.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to the wonders and successes of ILEA. On that and on Conservative education policies, I can do no better than to quote none other than Mr. Neil Fletcher, the Labour leader of ILEA, speaking to the Socialist Education Association on 30 September;
The appeal that the Tories are making, and which plays on parent's fears, clearly has some resonance. Put bluntly, these fears are that comprehensive education does not stretch and challenge children enough or provide them with the essential skills needed for survival in the modern world. How do you build into a comprehensive system a real emphasis on the achievement potential of each child … Does our system let down these children? For too many of them, if we are honest, the answer is yes. Why are working class children still not doing as well as their middle class peers? I am doubtful as to how far we should take socio-economic background as a determinant excuse.
Those are the words of one of the leading exponents of the Labour party's education policies. Mr. Neil Fletcher apparently accepts exactly what the Government are driving at and understands why there is an urgent need for the Bill to be implemented.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I wish to make two brief points. First, as a person of extreme moderation, I find it difficult to know how I can be expected to vote for the timetable motion if the Secretary of State does not tell us in his wind-up speech whether ILEA itself is to be guillotined. At the moment, it is being destroyed by a thousand cuts and, as I told the Committee, by the tactics of chambre des oubliettes, but it seems that there is worse to come and that two Tory grandees, who have slipped out to avoid the whiplash of my tongue, are seeking to test to destruction the nerve of the Secretary of State.
As the Government try to make up their mind when and how to behead, dismember and disembody ILEA, they stand guilty, first, of denying the validity of the democratic process; secondly, of tormenting those who have the job of running ILEA's education system; and, thirdly, of playing with the education of 270,000 pupils. I should have thought that everyone, including the Secretary of State—good, decent, liberal person that he is—would find it tragic that the future of the children of the capital should be made contingent on the splenetic outbursts of the tigerish tiger from Henley and the Knuckleduster Kid from Chingford. Surely, the Secretary of State cannot be beyond shame. He cannot allow himself to become the cat's paw of the tigerish tiger and the punch bag for the knuckleduster kid.
I was present when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) spoke about ILEA on Second Reading. He now appears to be in the driving seat at the Department of Education and Science. On Second Reading, he spoke about schools in ILEA and the institutions of higher learning that ILEA runs, with roughly the same gushing ignorance with which he speaks about so many other subjects. He comes here as a Privy Councillor and dabbles in this, that and the other. He ends up by appearing rather

like a father who buys his young children a bucket and spade prior to sending them on holiday to the Rocky mountains.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, parents whose children attend ILEA's schools are beginning to wonder what it is—apart from political ambition — that makes the right hon. Member for Henley so concerned about the education of some of the poorest children in the country when he is one of the richest people in England. Parents in Hackney have decided that the right hon. Gentleman is living proof of Maurice Baring's famous dictum:
If you would know what the Lord God thinks of money, you have only to look at those to whom he gives it.
My first point, therefore, is simply this: before we vote on this timetable motion, the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State himself, as he is to reply, should tell us when the right hon. Member for Henley will officially take over the portfolio at the Department of Education and Science.
My second point concerns the offer of a job made to Mr. William Stubbs, the education officer of ILEA, by the Secretary of State and the fact that Mr. Stubbs has accepted that offer. We should not vote on this issue until we have had a statement from the Secretary of State about what he perceives to be his role in this and how he perceives and justifies the role of Mr. William Stubbs. In New Testament biblical times, the going rate for treachery was 30 pieces of silver, but for Mr. Stubbs it appears to be 10 G — that is, the £10,000 that I understand the Secretary of State will add to his salary when he takes up his new job and abandons ship at ILEA.
I do not want to criticise Mr. Stubbs professionally, but I criticise his courage, because a serious political point is involved that cannot be forgotten. In abandoning ship, Mr. Stubbs reminds me of the naval captain who, on hearing that war was about to break out, scuppered his ships so that he would not have to engage in battle.
Mr. Stubbs tells us that there is no conflict of interest between what he is doing and the fact that he is the education officer at ILEA. I ask Mr. Stubbs, the Secretary of State and the House to consider that. The Secretary of State, who is giving William Stubbs a job, only last week announced that he was cutting ILEA's budget, which Mr. Stubbs heads, by £114 million, putting at risk 3,000 teaching jobs. To say that there is no conflict of interest is to abuse the ordinary use of the English language.
The Secretary of State has offered a job to Mr. William Stubbs, the head of ILEA, who says that the Secretary of State's proposals in the Bill will destroy ILEA. Only somebody well versed in devilish semantics would seek to argue that there was no conflict of interest there.
Worse than that, the job offered to Mr. Stubbs is as head of the funding council of the polytechnics. Every ILEA member to whom I have spoken is opposed to the way in which that funding council will operate and to the role that Mr. Stubbs will play in denying academic freedom to polytechnics. That is the point that the universities' and polytechnics' funding councils have made. How dare the Secretary of State or Mr. William Stubbs seek to argue that there is no conflict of interest in the offer and acceptance of that particular job?
If Mr. Stubbs really believes that there is no conflict of interest, he no longer recognises the nature or quality of his acts, he is no longer capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and if he came before a court of law he


would be certified under the M'Naghten rules—and so, incidentally, would the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] We know that this is about, not certification, but political will power. [Interruption] I heard the Secretary of State ask me to repeat what I said outside the House. I was not going to tell him this, but over the weekend I wrote Mr. Speaker a private, confidential letter indicting the Secretary of State and Mr. Stubbs of breach of privilege and contempt of this House. I cannot talk about private confidential letters to Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that Mr. Speaker will take this matter rather more seriously than perhaps the Secretary of State has done.
This reminds me of the time when I was at the Bar, defending professional criminals. When some people had committed a serious crime, although their dabs were all over the scene of the crime and they had made a full and frank confession to the police and signed it, there was no way that counsel for the Crown—however hard he or she tried or however skilful he or she was—could get that guilty person to make any incriminating statement. By intensive psychological pressure one can wipe a crime out of one's mind. In this case, Mr. William Stubbs and the Secretary of State, caught bang to rights, will not issue a plea of guilty. Therefore, I hope that Mr. Speaker will take up the matter and come back to the House on it.

Mr. Walden: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he has ranged widely from the Old Testament to the Rocky mountains and back to confessions. I was reminded of what my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said about the unpressured confession of Mr. Neil Fletcher. We are discussing the failure of ILEA, a massive and over-financed organisation, to provide education of quality for ordinary children. Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he deal with that central point and come back from the Rockies and the Old Testament?

Mr. Sedgemore: I was about to sit down, but I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's intervention. In my discussions with ILEA, it has been put to me that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, there is a management problem. I do not want to criticise Mr. Stubbs professionally, but as the hon. Gentleman is drawing me out, I must say that the consensus of those who have studied the issue is that the management problem is not the problem to which Mr. Stubbs has addressed himself over the past 10 years. Although he has done some good work for ILEA, he has not addressed himself to the problem to which the hon. Gentleman objects most seriously. If that is true—and it is what ILEA members say—I regret it.
One should not damn ILEA out of hand. We hear a great deal about its examination results, and HMI has produced reports which show that, if ILEA's examination results are adjusted for social deprivation, they are slightly better than the average. I do not say that that is great; they should be improved. If there is any place in inner London where there is room to improve ILEA's education, it is Hackney which I represent. I am not trying to push ILEA to the skies or to knock it down. Nobody could suggest that either boroughs opting out or the Secretary of State introducing proposals to abolish ILEA, as we think he will, is sensible, and Mr. Stubbs to his credit, at least until recently, has argued that the proposals are silly.

Mr. Harry Greenway: As one who worked with Mr. William Stubbs, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to slur Mr. Stubbs to the extent to which he has done, without at least saying that Mr. Stubbs has given the most distinguished service to the children and teachers of London and to all connected with education.

Mr. Sedgemore: Mr. William Stubbs has done some first-class work for ILEA, and the range of its educational service, which is universally admired by the inspectors, is to Mr. Stubbs' credit. On the debit side, Mr. Stubbs does not appear to have addressed the management problem. On the issue which I have raised, I do not retract one comma, colon or full stop. Everybody to whom I have spoken has been shocked by Mr. Stubbs, the speed with which he has acted and the fact that he did not consult his colleagues, or the people for whom he worked. In my view, his action constitutes a constitutional outrage for which both he and the Secretary of State must answer.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: It may please you Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hear that I intend to speak not about ILEA, but about an issue of concern to people throughout the United Kingdom.
I strongly support the motion to timetable the Education Reform Bill. It is a massive Bill, as befits a massive task. It aims to reform all levels of education. up to and including universities. Since the Bill has more than 140 clauses and so far we have covered only 43, my fear is that we may not reach the important clauses on universities unless we have the timetable proposed by the Government.
Some of the clauses on universities worry me. Although the proposals for schools are catching the media spotlight, the proposals for universities seem to be at least as radical. Sadly, in some respects the proposals for universities will be extremely harmful. Since some of my hon. Friends believe that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals supports the proposals, I should like to quote from a recent letter from Mr. Taylor, the secretary general of the CVCP. He writes:
The universities are on the side of change. And indeed they have changed radically in recent years. They have been able to do so because their autonomy has allowed them to act imaginatively. They in no way question the importance of accounting in full for public moneys granted to them and have recently taken steps to sharpen up their procedures in this respect.
Their autonomy is now threatened. This Bill would create a new beaurocratic machinery subservient to direct and detailed ministerial intervention. This is strangely at odds with the Government's declared intention to foster university autonomy and runs counter to its express belief that organisations respond best if they are given the responsibility implicit in freedom …
At this stage we wish to concentrate on two major issues. The First is The Universities Funding Council and the powers of the Secretary of State. (clauses 92, 94). The Bill represents a very significant increase in the powers of the Secretary of State even above those foreshadowed in the consultative document issued six months ago.
For example:
The Secretary of State is empowered to 'make grants to each of the funding councils of such amounts and subject to such conditions as he may determine'. (94.3)
The Secretary of State 'may by order confer or impose on either of the funding councils such additional functions as he thinks fit'. (94.1)
The funding councils 'shall comply with any directions given to them by the Secretary of State'. (94.4)


The logic of this is that the UFC would merely be the Secretary of State's agent.
Nobody with a nervous disposition should read the powers given to the Secretary of State in the clauses relating to universities. Nobody should look on this Bill as a Bill solely for this reasonable Secretary of State, as we are writing legislation which may last 30 to 40 years and could cover all manner of Secretaries of State. These are extraordinary and dangerous powers. They are strong enough to destroy any reasonable level of autonomy in our university system.
On tenure and academic freedom, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals says:
The Government has decided to abolish academic tenure. Assurances have been given in speeches and parliamentary statements that academic freedom will be protected when tenure is removed. By 'academic freedom' universities do not mean unqualified job protection. They mean the freedom within the law for academic staff to question and to test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing individuals in jeopardy of losing their jobs. The Government has accepted this definition in its recent statements. So why is there no protection in the Bill?
The Association of University Teachers is also opposed to the proposals on tenure, which it believes will add significantly to the brain drain. If our brightest academics can be fired at short notice, perhaps only for expressing unpopular views, why should they not go to other countries—even to America, which so many of my colleagues admire as the great home of the free market, where tenure is generally available in a free-market system and where no Goverment have tried in a nanny or any other way to remove universities' power to give tenure if they wish to do so.
These proposals are unwelcome in universities at all levels. I fear that they will create confrontation and ill will. It saddens me to see that resulting from our proposals.
I thought that it might be helpful for the House if I gave some figures to show what academic tenure means in practice—whether it means a job for life. Further, I thought that it might be helpful if I contrasted such figures with equivalents in the bracing atmosphere of the Department of Education and Science and other parts of the public sector, where, we are told, tenure does not exist.
I expected, of course, to find a static, sleepy university sector and a rapidly changing, thrusting and ever-moving DES. I found from the University Grants Committee official figures that one in six university staff in Britain have lost their jobs since 1979—some job for life․—and that 10,000 staff are on temporary appointments.
In a written question, I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science
how many employees of his Department have been made redundant on grounds of redundancy or financial exigency in the last 10 years". —[Official Report, 8 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 100.]
Those are the words used in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister of State replied that, from 1977 to 1985, the number of people declared redundant in the DES amounted to one part-time cleaner in a local office. In 1986—another heavy year for redundancies in the DES—one packer, nominally on secondment to the British Library in Boston, was declared redundant solely because he or she was unwilling to accept regrading.
I thought that it might be of interest to the House if I gave some figures for the House of Commons—another

bracing atmosphere. I asked the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), as representing the House of Commons Commission,
how many employees of the Commission or its predecessor have been made redundant on grounds of redundancy or financial exigency in the last 10 years".
He replied:
In the last 10 years one employee's appointment has been terminated on grounds of redundancy."—[Official Report, 10 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 242.]
The idea that tenure means a job for life is clearly a myth when one sixth of university staff have lost their jobs since 1979 and when 10,000 are on temporary appointments. All the flexibility that the vice-chancellors could possibly want, and which any reasonable Government could want for any reasonable plans for universities, is already built into the system. I ask Ministers, hon. Members and the Committee to bear in mind the figures that I have given. I hope that Ministers will seriously reconsider the draconian proposals in this part of the Bill.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) has set out clearly his worries about the parts of the Bill that affect universities. I shall not cause him further embarrassment by praising his speech too warmly, but I am sure his trenchant criticism and the statistics that he provided will strike the absent Minister with responsibility for higher education when we reach the relevant clauses in Committee.
I shall be brief, as there is no need for those of us who are members of the Committee to rehearse setpiece debates that we have already had or those we are likely to have. I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about the need for timetabling. I understand the argument that the exigencies of Committee work can sometimes lead to unexpected concessions late at night. My response is that we have had very few concessions, late at night or otherwise, from any of the Ministers. There have been no changes and it looks increasingly likely that changes will not be conceded unless the Government lose a Division.
We are not dealing here with the logic of the argument or the pressure on Departments. We should move towards pre-legislation reform through consultation with persons outside the House, and increasing use of Special Standing Committee procedure, followed by timetabling of all legislation. That would give us a more rational form of law-making than is available at present, when timetabling is not introduced until late.
I agree with one point made by the Leader of the House. There has been no attempt by the Opposition—neither the Labour, nor the minority party Oppositions as all Oppositions are plural in this House—to forestall or prevent the progress of reasonable debate in Committee. That is a credit to all Committee members and, particularly, to my hon. Friends who lead for the Opposition. They have been criticised in the education media for their role, but it is preferable to adopt such a tactic in Committee where principles and certain detailed issues can be debated and taken up with Ministers in a rational way. That is preferable to the notion of opposition which begins at clause 1, produces 100 amendments to that clause and wastes the Opposition's and the Government's


time. It is right for minority Members on the Committee to pay tribute to the way in which the Committee on the Bill has been conducted.
Although I have spoken in favour of the principle of timetabling all legislation, my hon. Friends and I will oppose the timetable motion, not because of the principle of timetabling, but because of the principles of the Bill. Those principles are unnecessary for the education system in England. They are not being introduced in Scotland because the Scots, quite sensibly, do not regard the need to legislate centrally as a prerequisite of curriculum or structural changes in education policy.
In the light of history, the Bill will be seen as a major centralist intervention in the education system, destroying the partnership between local education authorities and central Government and creating new forms of centralisation in the guise of local decentralisation. Grant-maintained schools will be established through a central Department agency, although I do not see many such schools being set up in Wales. The local democracy of local education authorities will be subverted. In that sense, the Bill's principles are centralising tendencies. They are not about local freedom. They are about the destruction of local communities, because they will take the control of educational institutions away from the local community.
Similarly, the proposals for the national curriculum are centralisation proposals. They are attempts by the Secretary of State to impose an unnecessary structure on the curriculum development in schools. The agencies for change existed in the Schools Council and the examination bodies, but the Department prefers to undo those democratic structures, which included an elected element from the teaching profession, and replace them with centralising tendencies.
Although I am pessimistic about the Bill, I have a great deal of confidence in the education system. The Secretary of State may legislate, but he will not be able to deliver the negative principles in the Bill. That is already emerging. When he sets up groups of experts to consider assessment, they will come back and say that these simplistic notions, such as testing the attainment of kids aged seven, 11 and 14, cannot be implemented. The centralising hand of the Department cannot operate in the curriculum because it cannot reach into the reality of the classroom and of the education system. Although we who have lived and worked in education are concerned about the Bill, we are convinced that the reality of the system will be very different from what is being legislated for in the Bill.

Mr. James Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the road which he has signposted, but I do wish to make a brief reference to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I listened to his comments about Mr. William Stubbs and thought, "Methinks he doth protest too much." Mr. Stubbs must indeed be a good choice if he upsets Opposition Members as much as he evidently does.
The Education Reform Bill is important to the education system and to the nation's children. Like many other Conservative Members, I am anxious to see it enacted in time for the new school year in September. That is why a guillotine is being introduced. It is a large Bill, which, including the schedules, contains 158 clauses, and,

so far, in Committee we have dealt with about a third in some 89 hours. It will, of course, receive much further consideration in Standing Committee.
I listened with interest to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, when he described this timetable motion as the most generous for 20 years and said that it provides a further 90 hours to enable the Bill to be fully considered. In addition, it will be considered on Report and will attract considerable discussion and attention in the other place. If the motion is not agreed and the Bill continues at its fairly leisurely pace in Committee, the nation's children will not have the benefit of the reforms incorporated in the Bill by the next school year. That is why I and my hon. Friends will give the measure our unconditional support this evening.
Much nonsense has been talked about timetable motions. I have listened with interest to the comments of some Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, the record for timetable motions is held not by one of my right hon. Friends, and certainly not by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but by a member of the official Opposition who, when in government, guillotined five Bills in one day, on 20 July 1976. That was truly a black Tuesday in the history of the House—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends describe the right hon. Gentleman as Robespierre, but it is not for me to comment on that interesting thought.
It is an impressive list of Bills. The Bills guillotined that day were the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the Dock Work Regulation Bill, the Health Services Bill, the Rent (Agriculture) Bill and—I hear the expressions of shock and horror from my hon. Friends, but the worst is yet to come—the Education Bill. That Bill set out to destroy choice and to introduce uniformity.
Opposition Members have expressed concern about the democratic process and the need for full discussion. I do not know how they can square their statements today with the actions of the Labour Government in 1976, but clearly actions speak louder than words. Their consciences, like their policies, must be pretty flexible.
The amount of time devoted to the Education Reform Bill so far is quite significant. More time has been spent on it than was spent on the corresponding stage of the Education Bill 1944, on which all post-war education has been founded. Here I must acknowledge with thanks the research done for me by the Library. The staff have advised me that about 86 hours, over 14 days, were spent on the 1944 Act. This Bill has therefore had more discussion than the 1944 Act.
The holier-than-thou attitude adopted by Opposition Members must sit uncomfortably on their shoulders, in the light of their party's previous actions. All Governments use the guillotine, and all Oppositions protest. The most effective weapon available to the Opposition is the delaying tactic—my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) made that point—but if Governments are to get legislation on to to the statute book, they must use timetable motions. I am anxious that the measures in the Bill are adopted as quickly as possible.
Incidentally, the Labour party speaks with a forked tongue on the core curriculum. On 11 October 1987, speaking on "Frost on Sunday", the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said:
I chaired a working party of the Labour party 15 years ago which recommended a national curriculum. It is a sensible way of trying to guarantee standards of education in all our


schools … I am in favour and so is the Labour party of what we call diagnostic testing and regular and continuous assessment of children to find out how they are getting on.
Those are comments of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be proud, but it seems that between 11 and 20 November last year, a sea change occurred in the thinking of the hon. Member for Blackburn.
It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, but opposition for opposition's sake on an issue as important as this is grossly irresponsible. That is why I hope that my hon. Friends will support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby tonight.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) obviously wrote his speech before he heard the debate. He has certainly not remembered much of what has happened in Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about you?"] I admit that I prepared notes for this debate—

Mr. Pawsey: Why is my preparation wrong and the hon. Lady's right?

Ms. Armstrong: The House can see what we are having to put up with in Committee.
I accept that a member of my family has in the past spoken in the House in favour of guillotines. I am not against guillotines in general, but I am against the guillotine on this Bill now.
In Committee, we have had serious debates, during which Opposition Members, on the instructions of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), have made brief speeches. We have tried to consider matters carefully, without wandering from the subject, and to stick to the amendments. That has meant that Opposition Members have spoken for less time than Conservative Members. The guillotine motion has been moved at a much earlier stage of the Bill than on any Bill during the past 20 years. It has been moved now because the Government know that we are getting near those aspects of the Bill on which they are most rocky and to which hon. Members and people outside the House object most fiercely.
We have been told that, at our present pace, we could not hope to get through the Bill in time and discuss all the issues, but Conservative Members must know that that is nonsense. The Opposition have dealt with the Bill responsibly to make sure that we would reach the end in time. We were determined that every bit of it should be discussed effectively.
The number of hours that has been quoted for our discussion of the Bill is inaccurate, because it includes tea breaks and adjournments for Divisions in the House. It is much less than 89 hours.
The inadequate consultation on the Bill and inadequate preparation by the Government have meant that the Opposition are expected to do things in Committee for which any schoolteacher would be disciplined for bad behaviour. We must consider reports as they come into Committee and then the clauses which relate to those reports. The procedure is, at best, anti-democratic. It makes nonsense of any Government's commitment to consultation or to democracy.
I should have liked to say more about this outrageous guillotine motion, but I do not have time. The Opposition are determined to discuss the Bill properly, but the Government will make that impossible.

Mr. Jack Straw: This has been an interesting and entertaining debate, with fine speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) for his remarks about the organisation of the Opposition.
We heard a courageous and stimulating speech from the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), and we look forward to his contribution on that subject in Committee. It is noteworthy that the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) stayed for the opening speeches and then disappeared—such is their close interest in the Bill and the future of the Inner London education authority.
The timetable motion is an abuse of power. No one can deny the wish of a Government to secure progress for their business, but that must be balanced against the need for adequate debate and discussion of a measure, for such debate and scrutiny of legislation are central to the work of Parliament. Guillotines can be justified only where an Opposition have filibustered a Bill, where they have refused all reasonable suggestions to agree a timetable, or where there is no possibility of the Government getting their business through at reasonable speed without a guillotine.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Chingford anticipated all that. He said:
In an attempt to show value for money, the official Opposition will insist on having about 80 hours' debate on clauses 1 to 3 or thereabouts in Committee, and then force a guillotine."—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 809.].
I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that he is not here to answer my point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know where he is. I told him that I would mention him.
The right hon. Gentleman was right about one thing: we have spent more than 80 hours in Committee. But during those 87 hours we have covered 43 clauses and two extremely long schedules. Even without a guillotine, we have devoted fewer than two hours of debate to each clause or schedule. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West said, Opposition Members have spoken for less time than Conservative Members.
The Leader of the House made the interesting admission that there has been no filibustering by the Opposition. We have had no interest in filibustering. Our interest has always been in careful and relentless scrutiny of the Bill, and it is precisely because of that dissection of the Bill, which caused acute embarrassment to Ministers, that the Government now wish to curtail our discussion.
None of us should be surprised about that, because the members of the Committee have witnessed some extraordinary performances by Ministers. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn)— I am not surprised that he has had his hand over his face—agreed that the national curriculum need take up only one minute of any week. He described the


national curriculum—to which the Conservative party devoted an entire party political broadcast—as a "fairy tricycle" or a "three-wheeled bicycle".
Under questioning, the Minister of State admitted that the policy of open admissions was in reality one for accelerated closures of schools and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said, gave three different answers in the same speech about whether opted-out schools could use money raised by parent-teacher associations to employ teachers.
Then there is the Secretary of State himself, a man who thought he would make his name with this Bill, but has found out otherwise, because support for opting out has not risen since he went around the country proselytising on behalf of the cause—it has declined still further from the 35 per cent. that it achieved in the polls after the election. Support for his version of the national curriculum has declined by an even greater percentage; it stood at 67 per cent. before he started advocating it, and it is now down to 46 per cent.
So I was distressed to read in the papers at the weekend that the odds on the Secretary of State in the Conservative leadership stakes have lengthened slightly as a result of his performance. That is a matter that causes me considerable distress. As I have told him, our interest, apart from trying to defeat the Bill, is to ensure that he remains upright when the leadership contest takes place. I am glad to see the Secretary of State taking that in the spirit in which it is offered.
Last Tuesday, the right hon. Gentleman could have taken all day to justify his proposals for opting out, but such is his real support for those proposals that he decided instead to take only seven minutes.
One reason why the Government have gone ahead with this completely unjustified guillotine — given that we have not filibustered — was to avoid the continuing embarrassment of Ministers. However, the Government planned to guillotine the Bill even before it was published. They did so for two reasons: first, because there was doubt about the competence, not to say the loyalty, of the Secretary of State's junior Ministers. When we heard the Secretary of State telling the Committee that he had never underestimated the capacity of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to dig himself out of any hole into which he had dug himself, we understood his dilemma.
The second reason for the guillotine, even before the 13111 emerged from the printers, was that the Secretary of State was petrified at what would happen on Report, in the other place, and when the amendments from the Lords returned to this Chamber.
Since then, there has turned out to be a third reason why the Bill should be guillotined—the incompetence of Government business managers. They are creating a logjam in the House of Lords; it took them two and a half weeks to get the poll tax Bill into Committee, which would certainly not have happened if the Secretary of State for Education had been in charge.

Mr. Sedgemore: There would not have been a poll tax.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is wrong: it was the right hon. Gentleman's idea. I must tell Conservative Members that they need to watch the Secretary of State—he is very fly. He invents the poll tax and then clears off. He invests opting out and dismembers ILEA, and will then clear off. I daresay he will be put into the DHSS and then be cleared off.
The luckless Lord President of the Council is responsible for the fact that the House of Lords will have to digest 570 pages of legislation in about two months. I am not surprised that he sought to guillotine the Bill with no justification. Whatever the honeyed words of the Leader of the House or the syrupy words of the Secretary of State, this guillotine has only one purpose—to stifle debate.
I must tell the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that he will have to find a bit more backbone if he wants to be the leader of the Liberal party, or the Social and Liberal Democratic party, or the Social Democratic party. To suggest, as he did, that the guillotine is relatively generous, is virtually to cross the Floor. He must be blind to what is happening. If we do the arithmetic, we discover, that roughly speaking, we have devoted just under two hours to each clause until now. As the hon. Member for Yeovil knows, that is not enough—despite the fact that he has spoken for a good deal of that time. But we have not wished to embarrass him by his record. If the Leader of the House had wanted to refer to a filibuster, he might have singled out the hon. Members for Yeovil and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey).
Under the guillotine, there will be fewer than 45 minutes per clause. That is what the hon. Member for Yeovil calls relatively generous — —[Interruption.] Of course he will be voting with us. As we know, members of the Social Democratic Liberal party—or Liberal and Social Democratic party—are reasonable people and always wish to be on both sides at once. On the one hand, the guillotine is relatively generous. On the other, it is outrageous. There is a facility for voting on both sides in the House, and I urge the hon. Member for Yeovil to use it.
It is outrageous that we shall have only two and a half days to discuss opting out, two days on the reorganisation of further education, two days on state control of universities and only a day and a half on ILEA.
Why do we need more time to discuss opting out? The critical clauses on the balloting arrangements for opting out will be allowed only five hours of discussion. We need a lot more than that for the Secretary of State to explain the ballot-rigging that is inherent in those clauses, and how it is democratic and fair to devise a ballot so that the minority—and I mean the minority of those voting—wins. Under the proposed arrangements, parents of a minority of the children whose parents have voted win the ballot.
If we take a school, put all the children in the playground, separate out the children of parents who have not taken part in the election — on the grounds that those people do not count—and then ask the children of parents who have voted for opting out to peel off in one direction and the children of those parents who have riot voted in favour in the other, there will often be more children on the side that voted against opting out than on the side that voted for it—yet the side that voted for it will win. And they call that democracy.
Ministers must find time to explain another point. Why, at the same time as they are saying that a 50 per cent. majority of those who bothered to vote is enough for schools to opt out, have those same Ministers voted for the Second Reading of the Housing Bill, which provides for a completely different arrangement, insisting in clause 96—I am happy to give a copy to the Secretary of State, who is looking puzzled at what the clause contains even


though he voted for it—that for local authority tenants to block a decision by a voracious private landlord to take over their tower block or council estate, 50 per cent. not of those voting, but of the total number of council tenants and people who happen to have bought their council houses must vote against that private landlord for the decision to be blocked?
I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Chingford has returned. He must explain how he supports these proposals, when he sponsored the Employment Act in 1982. It contained a proposition, still on the statute book, that if a closed shop was to be approved, 85 per cent. of those voting had to approve it. The present Government Chief Whip, then the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, said at the time that that was because of the overwhelming importance to the work force of a closed shop and its effect on individual rights. If the closed shop had immense importance for individual rights, why does not the issue of opting out have similar importance? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Mr. Tebbitt: I can immediately point out to the hon. Gentleman a great difference between the two things. A closed shop can easily rob a man of his job, with no appeal, but opting out of a school will not rob a child of his education.

Mr. Straw: We disagree on both counts. I believe that opting-out schools will rob children of their education. If the right hon. Gentleman has such confidence in his proposals, why does he not agree even to the idea that 50 per cent. of parents in a school should support a particular proposal?

Mr. Tebbit: rose—

Mr. Straw: I must close in one minute.
The Secretary of State has often described the Bill as a gerbil. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware of the natural history of the gerbil, but according to Maurice Burton's "Systematic Dictionary of Mammals of the World", gerbils are carriers of fleas bearing sylvatic plague. The "Encylopaedia Britannica" tells us that the African genus tatera gerbil is a possible carrier of bubonic plague. The Bill will bring plague to the education of the nation's children and the timetable motion should be opposed.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): This has been a short, interesting and crisp debate with excellent speeches from some of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends the Members for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) made excellent contributions and I shall consider carefully what was said. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), and we had two speeches on procedure to which I shall come shortly.
I stress at the outset the amount of time that has already been taken up in discussing this great measure of reform. It started on 26 October last year on an Opposition Supply day, when the Opposition asked for a debate on our consultation process. So keen were they that, on the day after they tabled the motion, they tried to change the order of business to put it off. That shows their commitment. When the Bill was introduced on 20 November 1987, they

said that it was all far too early. The Government wanted to introduce the Bill at that time to ensure that there would be plenty of debate in both Houses on this important measure.
On 1 December, we spent seven and a half hours on Second Reading and the money resolution, and the Standing Committee has spent 88 hours discussing 43 clauses. Under the terms of the proposed timetable motion, there will be a further 90 hours in Committee, making a total of 180 hours in Committee, and that will be followed by three days on Report and Third Reading. That will add a further 18 hours and the House will then have spent well over 200 hours considering the Bill.
By any standards that is a generous amount of time—even allowing for the fundamental reforms contained in the Bill. The Education Bill 1944 took 60 hours. The Opposition have said that that was an agreed measure. They should look at the debates on that Bill and at the debates preceding it to see how contentious it appeared to the various religious groups.
If we look at the three major Education Bills that we introduced in 1980, 1981 and 1986 and add together their Committee stages, we arrive at a figure of less than 200 hours—the time that will be spent on the present Bill. This is the most generous timetable motion for over 20 years. Of course, I recognise that no allocation would be sufficiently generous to prevent the Opposition's ritual complaints.
I invite the House to consider the facts. At the Committee's average rate of progress—and progress has been rather slower than average in the last two days—it will take about 250 to 300 hours to complete discussion of the Bill, including the detailed schedules. That is about another 15 weeks. Allowing for the Easter and Whitsun recesses, it is unlikely that the other place would receive the Bill until about June. If the Lords receive it in June, there is no way that they could complete consideration of the Bill by the end of July, and it would have to go into the October overspill.
If the Lords received the Bill as late as June, there is a real danger that they could not complete consideration at all. Of course, that is what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) would dearly like.

Mr. Straw: If all that the right hon. Gentleman says is true, why did he not ask the Opposition for a deal?

Mr. Baker: It became quite clear in various informal discussions that I undertook that there was no possibility at all of a deal. That has been confirmed by the assertions made during the debate. The Opposition have said that we need plenty of time to discuss all the measures in the Bill that have still to be debated. That is what I want to secure.
The matter of a filibuster has been raised. There was nothing on the scale of John Golding's filibuster. He talked for 11 hours on the Telecommunications Bill and I heard every minute of his speech—[Interruption.] That was in Committee. No Opposition Member on the Committee upstairs could hold the Committee's attention and interest for 11 minutes, never mind 11 hours.
The nearest to come to that was the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). He opened his capacious mind to the Committee and gave it discourses on philosophy, equality, homosexuality in public schools and the financial policies of the Pharaoh Amenhotep III, generally known as Amenhotep junior,


the golden emperor who ruled Egypt in the 15th century BC. We also heard him on Welsh disestablishment and on agnosticism and atheism.
The hon. Member startled the Committee one day by asking us if we all realised that at school he had won all the religious and scripture prizes. What a wonderful beginning! Since then it has been downhill all the way. He also wrote a poem about me. It was an awful piece of doggerel. Indeed, it gives doggerel a bad name. It neither rhymed nor scanned. The post of poet laureate is filled, but I suppose that the hon. Gentleman could well qualify for the post of poet lunatic.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who is a distinguished former Chairman of the Procedure Committee asked about the general nature of timetable motions. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) also asked about that.
I have had the task of taking through the House under the guillotine procedure two major Bills — the British Telecommunications Bill and the Local Government Bill 1985. The Procedure Committee should take seriously the proposal that we should find a better way of dealing with some of our legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North is a great parliamentarian. Therefore, in view of the positions that he has held, when he advises the House to consider new procedures for these matters, the House should weigh his words very carefully.
As I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton was the Chairman of the Procedure Committee that reported on this matter. Its second report recommended that a Committee should be established at the start of each Parliament to consider which Bills were likely to involve lengthy discussions in Committee, so that the guillotine could then be introduced for these Bills. I understand that that proposal was later turned down.
My hon. Friend has rightly drawn the attention of the House to the amendment on today's Order Paper. It was not called by you, Mr. Speaker, but none the less it is an important amendment. The amendment proposed:
The Business Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee shall allocate the time so as to ensure that all parts of the Bill can be adequately scrutinised and every substantive proposal of the Bill he considered.
I give my hon. Friend the assurance that, in my discussions with the hon. Member for Blackburn, I shall certainly try to ensure that every major matter is given full and measured debate. It is in the interests of all that that should happen—not only the Opposition, but the Government.
The purpose of this guillotine motion is to ensure an even pattern of debate so that the major issues are debated. So far, we have covered the national curriculum, assessment and testing, open enrolment, financial delegation and now grant-maintained schools. There is still much to be done. We still have to deal with the rest of the grant-maintained schools, further education, collective worship, city technology colleges, higher education, financial delegation to colleges, polytechnics and universities and, of course, the Inner London education authority.
On the subject of ILEA, I confirm, as I said at the end of last week, that we are considering the various views put forward about its future. No decision has been taken and the matter will have to be considered collectively by

Ministers and our conclusions reported to he House. I re-emphasise the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House — that should there be a major change of policy there will have to be discussion through the usual channels about its implications for the timetable. I want to ensure that all these measures are properly arid fully debated. It is important that they are, because, as hon. Members have said, they are important measures.
The hon. Member for Blackburn chided my colleagues and me about our conduct in Committee. The House should recognise that the amount of time that we have now allocated, about 200 hours, is generous by any standards. I see that the Leader of the Opposition is calling it a gag. If it is a gag, it must be accounted the most inefficient in history. I think that the Leader of the Opposition knows all about gags— not from using them on himself, but from the accusations now being made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about his silencing debate in his own party. It would appear that the only party in the' listening party who is not listening is the Leader of the Opposition himself.
None the less, that has not prevented the hon. Member for Blackburn from attacking the timetable motion. In fact, it has given him a new lease of life, because the Labour party has been rather subdued in Committee. Labour Members have not voted against 36 of the 43 clauses that have been taken as standing part of the Bill, including three dealing with grant-maintained schools. All observers of the Committee have been struck by the muted nature of the opposition.
I have had an analysis made of the time taken by each member of the Committee. The hon. Member for Blackburn has spoken for 321 minutes; the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), on the other hand, has spoken for 475 minutes. He has spoken for longer than all the Conservative Back Benchers put together. It is therefore not surprising that The Guardian has described the performance of the Labour party in Committee as lacklustre. I have to say to the hon. Member for Blackburn, in the words of the old nursery rhyme. "Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack's tripped over the Liberal stick." —[Interruption.] Let me point out to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch that at least my poem rhymed and scanned.
The hon. Member for Yeovil—the Liberal stick—has tabled more amendments than any other member of the Committee, including the Government. We all know his very good reason for doing that. In the past few weeks, he has wanted it clearly known that he will not be concerned with any of the shenanigans in the Liberal party. On that fateful night when the joint manifesto was being drawn up by the leaders of the Liberal party and what is left of the SDP, he was in Committee Room 14. What is more, 31 hon. Members can testify that he was there, boring them all to distraction, at the time when the crime was committed. The hon. Gentleman has a perfect alibi.
With all this volume of eloquence, we thought that we might get something out of the hon. Member for Yeovil about the Liberal party's education policy. However, our hopes have been dashed. The hon. Gentleman says that he likes parent power, but not too much; he likes choice, but not too much; he likes delegated budgets, but not too much; he likes excellence, but not too much. He has conducted a sustained exercise in restrained enthusiasm. As he flits from one half-belief to another thinly held


conviction, the hon. Gentleman has become the snapper-up of unconsidered half-thoughts. How suitable in a spokesman for half a party.

Mr. Ashdown: I am somewhat flattered that the right hon. Gentleman has so far spent more of his speech attacking me than he has spent attacking the official Opposition. He knows perfectly well that those policies were laid out in a document that I know he has received. Is he prepared to say to the House what he said in Committee: that the only effective opposition to his proposals has come from me, rather than from the official Opposition?

Mr. Baker: Such modesty. Where is the manifesto? Where are the words? There we have it all. Where are the hon. Gentleman's colleagues? There is none to listen. His words have fallen on stony ground. The electoral college is not here.
The Opposition have not been making good use of their time in Committee. They have notably failed to put their arguments across convincingly. There is much more to be done.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills).

Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 222.

Division No. 159]
[7.24 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Aitken, Jonathan
Buck, Sir Antony


Alexander, Richard
Budgen, Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Amos, Alan
Butler, Chris


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Ashby, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aspinwall, Jack
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert
Chope, Christopher


Atkinson, David
Churchill, Mr


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Conway, Derek


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Couchman, James


Benyon, W.
Cran, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Curry, David


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Day, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Devlin, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dover, Den


Bowis, John
Dunn, Bob


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Durant, Tony


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dykes, Hugh


Brazier, Julian
Eggar, Tim


Bright, Graham
Emery, Sir Peter


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Evennett, David





Fallon, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Farr, Sir John
Mates, Michael


Favell, Tony
Maude, Hon Francis


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mills, Iain


Franks, Cecil
Miscampbell, Norman


Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


French, Douglas
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Gale, Roger
Moate, Roger


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Monro, Sir Hector


Gill, Christopher
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moore, Rt Hon John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Goodlad, Alastair
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moss, Malcolm


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gow, Ian
Mudd, David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Neale, Gerrard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Needham, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Neubert, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Nicholls, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Page, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Patnick, Irvine


Harris, David
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Haselhurst, Alan
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hawkins, Christopher
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Pawsey, James


Hayward, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heddle, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hill, James
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hind, Kenneth
Powell, William (Corby)


Holt, Richard
Price, Sir David


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rattan, Keith


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Irvine, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knapman, Roger
Rost, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knowles, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Knox, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lang, Ian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Latham, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SM)


Lilley, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lord, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Sims, Roger


McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacGregor, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maclean, David
Speed, Keith


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Squire, Robin


Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Malins, Humfrey
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stevens, Lewis


Maples, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Marlow, Tony
Stokes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stradling Thomas. Sir John






Sumberg, David
Waller, Gary


Summerson, Hugo
Ward, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wells, Bowen


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wheeler, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thorne, Neil
Wilkinson, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Tredinnick, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trippier, David
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Woodcock, Mike


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wakeham, Rt Hon John



Waldegrave, Hon William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walden, George
Mr. David Lightbown and


Walker, Bill T'side North)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunningham, Dr John


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tarn


Alton, David
Darling, Alastair


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Ashdown, Paddy
Dixon, Don


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Douglas, Dick


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dunnachie, James


Barron, Kevin
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Battle, John
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Margaret
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bell, Stuart
Fatchett, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Faulds, Andrew


Bennett, A. F. (D'ntn &amp; R'dish)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fisher, Mark


Blair, Tony
Flannery, Martin


Boateng, Paul
Flynn, Paul


Boyes, Roland
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fraser, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Galbraith, Samuel


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Galloway, George


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, Ted (Wallsendj


Buckley, George
George, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan, Jim
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Gould, Bryan


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Graham, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cartwright, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clay, Bob
Hardy, Peter


Clelland, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cohen, Harry
Heffer, Eric S.


Coleman, Donald
Henderson, Douglas


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Corbett, Robin
Holland, Stuart


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hood, James


Cox, Tom
Howells, Geraint


Crowther, Stan
Hoyle, Doug


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cummings, J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)





Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Pendry, Tom


Illsley, Eric
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, John


Janner, Greville
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


John, Brynmor
Quin, Ms Joyce


Johnston, Sir Russell
Radice, Giles


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Redmond, Martin


Kennedy, Charles
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Reid, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lambie, David
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lamond, James
Robertson, George


Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson, Geoffrey


Leighton, Ron
Rogers, Allan


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Litherland, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Tom
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Ian
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Macdonald, Calum
Short, Clare


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McKelvey, William
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


McTaggart, Bob
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Steinberg, Gerald


Marek, Dr John
Stott, Roger


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Strang, Gavin


Martlew, Eric
Straw, Jack


Maxton, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Meale, Alan
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Michael, Alun
Turner, Dennis


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Vaz, Keith


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wall, Pat


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Walley, Ms Joan


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wareing, Robert N.


Morgan, Rhodri
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morley, Elliott
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Mowlam, Marjorie
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mullin, Chris
Wilson, Brian


Murphy, Paul
Winnick, David


Nellist, Dave
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Worthington, Anthony


O'Brien, William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Tellers for the Noes:


Parry, Robert
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Patchett, Terry
Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee
1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 3rd March 1988.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 3rd March may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 4th March.

Report and Third Reading
2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the last


of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Motion under Standing Order No. 20: extra time
7. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion.

Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal
12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Education Reform Bill;


Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill comes to us from another place, where it has already been discussed in some detail. But to assist the House in its consideration, let me put the Bill into context, describe the background, arid then deal with the three separate parts of the Bill on woodlands, farm diversification, and the structure of the Development Commission. I intend to keep my remarks brief because it is not a full-day debate. I am sure that many hon. Members wish to speak.
The new opportunities that the Bill will bring about are part of a coherent policy that we have been developing for agriculture and the countryside in relation to the alternative use of land. The farm woodlands and forestry diversification proposals will contribute in differing ways towards our general objective of promoting an enterprising and more market-orientated agriculture, a flourishing rural economy, and an attractive and living countryside.
I stress that the proposals are only part of the programme. No doubt we shall debate or have already debated other proposals on other occasions. Such proposals include environmentally sensitive areas, for which we already have powers. We have been moving ahead fast. We have successfully led the way in the European Community, which now contributes 25 per cent. of the cost of ESAs. The proposals also include developing set-aside for alternative crops, in looking at alternative crops, and encouraging research and development into alternative industrial uses of agricultural products. Tonight, we are focusing on only two parts. I shall briefly set the background.
The House is well aware of the Government's efforts to deal with agricultural surpluses and the soaring costs of the common agricultural policy. This will call for major adjustments in the farming industry. In particular, when combined with the continued technological progress, which we can foresee in the next 10 years, it is clear that more land will have to come out of conventional food production.
A very useful report on the subject was published by the Agricultural Economic Development Committee last year called "Directions for Change: Land Use in the 1990s.'" I shall not go into detail, but it predicted that significant amounts of land, scattered throughout the United Kingdom, will be released, mainly from cereals and dairying, over the next seven, eight or nine years. Although experts would differ on the figures—it is impossible to be precise because it will depend on the changing and differing reactions among farmers and other matters—most would accept this basic premise.
The main thrust of action to tackle surpluses must be taken at Community level. Price restraint and stabilisers are the key to this, but other emerging Community policies will have an important part to play in the adjustment process, especially set-aside. Proposals on set-aside are currently before the Council of Ministers that build on existing provisions for the extensification scheme, which we have already discussed in the House.
These proposals have considerable potential for taking land out of production. They are, however, still under discussion. Indeed, they are due to be considered at the European Council in 10 days' time. This is a fast-changing and fast-moving scene. It is impossible to say exactly what extensification or set-aside proposals we shall end up with, but that we shall do so I can confidently predict.
There is a broad measure of agreement that such schemes can make a substantial contribution as a complement to price policy in reducing over-production. Now is not the time to go into detail on set-aside; no doubt there will be other opportunities to do so.
Meanwhile, the Bill gives us the enabling powers for two other elements of the programme of new opportunities that the Government are making available in the United Kingdom to assist in the necessary process of adjustment and to ensure that alternative farm resources employed in diversification are used to enhance the attractiveness of our countryside and to assist the rural economy.

Mr. Tony Benn: I have looked at the Bill with great care. I can find no reference in it to any requirement of viability of enterprise arising from the enormous subsidies that might flow from the Bill. Will the Minister explain why there is no test of viability for the receipts of grants from Government by farmers who are now in serious difficulties?

Mr. MacGregor: There are two aspects to the Bill in this context, and I hope to come to some parts of that later.
The farm woodlands scheme is not simply a scheme to get agricultural land out of agricultural production. It also has an important environmental context. That is one of the other key objectives of this proposal. I am satisfied that it will be a sensible measure to assist with the problem of reducing surpluses.
With regard to the farm diversification scheme, we are talking not about enormous subsidies—I think that they were the words used by the right hon. Gentleman—but about comparatively modest measures to assist farmers in the diversification process. I shall explain later how we hope that this will be a sensible way of achieving viable businesses and why the proposal in the Bill is designed to help with that viability.
I shall now turn to the content of the Bill. I should like to take clause 2 first. It is the major part of the Bill and it provides enabling powers for Ministers to make a scheme of grants in respect of farm woodlands for any one or more parts of Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, the necessary powers already exist.
Encouragement for woodlands forms part of our package because woodlands have been focused on by many experts as offering one of the most realistic alternatives to land currently in productive agriculture. Many people, when considering alternative ranges of crops, have focused on woodlands as one of the most hopeful sectors. I am realistic, and I recognise that they can make only a partial contribution to the land use problem. I do not want to claim that the Bill contains the panacea for alternative land use in the two proposals that it puts forward. There is no single panacea; all can make a contribution of one sort or another.
The 12,000 hectares a year scheme that we are proposing over the next three years could result in up to 30 million new trees a year, or 90 million trees in all. It is

important to put that figure in context. We have all been concerned about the devastation that the storm damage caused last October in many parts of southern England and East Anglia. We now know that about 15 million trees were lost. In the farm woodlands scheme there is potential for 90 million trees to be planted in the next three years. That is interesting in comparison with the 15 million trees that we have lost, which we all regard as having had a devastating environmental impact. The Bill has potential to create an attractive environmental impact.
Assuming that the House can give the Bill a swift passage, we shall be introducing the farm woodlands scheme in time for the autumn tree-planting season.
As some hon. Members will already know, I have revised significantly the Government's original proposals, taking into account the representations that we received during the consultation process. In particular, I have retargeted the scheme primarily towards arable land and improved grassland. This has a dual purpose, since, first, it will do more than the original proposals to reduce agricultural surpluses and, secondly, it will minimise the risk to land of conservation value. I know that the changes on the environmental and conservation aspects have been warmly welcomed by those interested in conservation matters.
To be eligible, improved grassland will have to have been cultivated and re-seeded in the past 10 years. Some have urged a less restrictive definition, but we must draw the line in a simple and effective way if we are to realise savings in agricultural support costs. That was the point to which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was trying to draw attention. As I always aim to do, in this scheme I have gone as much as possible for simple guidelines and simple administration.
We need to prevent farmers from ploughing up unimproved land to try to make it eligible for the scheme. We may therefore require a declaration from farmers to the effect that the land in question was already in cultivation in a particular base year — most probably 1986–87, as envisaged under the extensification scheme. Many of the points of detail are not for the Bill but for the regulations later.
At this stage, I should refer briefly to the main reason why it was necessary to bring forward a farm woodlands scheme. Of course, farmers are already eligible for forestry grants. It has been recognised in recent years that there is a cost in management to farmers in planting woodlands. There is also a loss of income on the land given to woodlands. There is a dual problem — a cost in managing, particularly in early years, and a loss of income on that land. Set against that is the fact that the income from woodlands is many years hence. There has been a question of income loss as well as the issue of encouragement to plant through planting grants. It is therefore the annual payments and the income to which the scheme is addressed.

Ms. Joyce Quin: In consideration of the farm woodlands scheme and the incentives for people to go into it, will the Minister say how many of the trees that he envisages being planted will be conifers? Will he accept that many people are worried about the environmental impact of large-scale conifer plantations and wish, therefore, to see environmental safeguards being built into the regulations?

Mr. MacGregor: I am coming to the environmental point. I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the way in which we have re-targeted the scheme to concentrate very much on broadleaf planting.
Because we are concentrating primarily on this more productive land, we have increased the rates of annual payment significantly compared with the amounts in the consultation document — to £190 per hectare in the lowlands, £150 per hectare in the disadvantaged areas and £100 per hectare in the severely disadvantaged areas. We are also encouraging more broadleaf planting by offering longer payment periods of 30 years for woodland containing more than 50 per cent. broadleaves and 40 years for pure oak and beech planting. The payment period for other planting will he 20 years.
As well as these annual payments, farmers will be eligible for forestry planting grants under existing schemes to get their woodlands established. For a wood of three to 10 hectares, the broadleaf woodland grant for pure broadleaves is currently £800 per hectare, nearly double the conifer rate of £420 per hectare. We have also accepted an amendment in another place which requires Ministers to review the rates of payment periodically. This appears as clause 2(3).
Because we are determined to try to keep down the administrative cost of the scheme and get as much of the money as possible through to the farmer, I have already announced that we shall be cutting down on the procedures whereby the Forestry Commission consults local authorities about proposed planting. Consultation on smaller schemes—those of less than 10 hectares—will no longer be required except in, for example, sites of special scientific interest, environmentally sensitive areas, national parks in England and Wales and national scenic areas in Scotland — national nature reserves are, incidentally, excluded from the scheme altogether.
I believe that this change will help to make the scheme more attractive to farmers, who are often put off by the complications of consultation, and will encourage the planting of small woodlands. I do not foresee any real risk to habitats or landscape from the planting of small areas of trees, mainly on improved land. Indeed, I think that the environmental impact of the scheme will be positive, particularly as applications are scrutinised by the Forestry Commission and can be amended if they are unsatisfactory on environmental grounds. But we shall look at this aspect very carefully when we come to review the scheme in 1991 at the end of the three-year experimental period.

Mr. Tony Speller: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the problem of farm incomes in general? I am sure that we all agree with my right hon. Friend's line on the environment, broadleaves and so on. Farm incomes are falling and falling. It seems as though on the present rating we are talking merely about slowing the decline in farm incomes. This is not a great help to the farmer.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has taken me rather wider than the Bill and I would probably be ill-advised to open up a much wider agricultural debate. As I have said, the Bill will help the process of adjustment on the reforms of the CAP.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: Having given away quite a lot, I should prefer to move on and enable as many hon. Members as wish to speak 'to do so.
The farmer's first point of contact will normally be with the agriculture advisory services. When he has prepared his application, perhaps with professional help, he will send it to the local Forestry Commission office. Checks will be carried out, including checks on the eligibility of the land, and a Forestry Commission official will visit the site to ensure that the proposals are suitable. The Forestry Commission will also conduct consultations with local authorities and other agencies where these are required. Once the application is approved, the agriculture Department will write and offer the farmer a place in the scheme. The farmer will then be required to confirm the number of hectares he intends to plant and when. In effect, the scheme is a sophisticated form of cash limit — a hectarage limit — and I should like to explain how I hope it will work.
This procedure is necessary, first, to ensure that the right sort of planting takes place, and, secondly, to enable us effectively to operate the limit of 12,000 hectares a year –36,000 hectares over three years. That is our limit. We cannot sensibly operate a first-received, first-served system, because applications will take different lengths of time to process, especially when consultations with other bodies are required. We do not want all applications to have to wait for the slowest one.
We intend, therefore, to allocate places in the scheme in order of applications being approved—up to when the hectarage limit is reached. One might describe this as a first-sorted out, first-served system. A similar system will operate for the quota of 3,000 hectares over three years for planting on poorer land in the less-favoured areas. This will attract the original — as in the consultation document—£30 rate of annual payment in recognition of the much lower agricultural income forgone on such land.
We shall, of course, monitor carefully the rate of approvals and, by limiting the total area approved to 12,000 hectares a year, we shall be able to ensure that expenditure on the scheme is kept under proper control. The area planted each year will determine the Government's financial obligation, first, in terms of planting grants from the Forestry Commission and, secondly, in terms of annual payments from the agriculture Departments which start to be paid a year after planting.
Because the area is monitored at an earlier stage than actual expenditure, our system will combine the virtues of limiting the Government's commitment and allow farmers to be reasonably clear where they stand. The monitoring of applications will also provide an early warning system so that, if the scheme clearly will be over-subscribed, we can close it to new applicants. This will save unnecessary work both for farmers in preparing applications which have to be rejected and for those administering the scheme.
One aspect of the scheme which I know will exercise the House in considering this Bill — farmers have often raised it with me — is the possibility of tenant participation. I am therefore pleased to be able to say that the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors have recently agreed on the model texts on which they have been working for some time. There are two types of model text — model clauses for use in


existing tenancy agreements under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984 and a model forestry lease for use on larger schemes where this seems more sensible.
All sides also seem agreed that, given the long-term nature of tree growing, it would be wrong to allow tenants to join the scheme without their landlord's consent. As always, these landlord-tenant issues are among the trickiest issues to deal with in any new initiative and I am sure that it is best wherever possible to keep them out of primary legislation. Agreement on this model approach to tenant participation is therefore very welcome to the Government.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: There is obviously a great deal of interest in the Bill. It would be better if hon. Members made their points in their contributions and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt with them.
Clause I will enable us to introduce non-capital grants towards the establishment, expansion, promotion and marketing of the products and services of a diversified farm business. This will give us the powers we need to bring in the assistance towards enterprise feasibility studies and marketing costs envisaged under the farm diversification scheme. Here I return to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
As the House will know, capital grants of 25 per cent. for investments up to a value of £35,000 in a wide range of on-farm diversifications have been available under this scheme since 1 January this year. These grants are designed to encourage farmers to explore the possibilities of earning income from activities other than the continued production of surpluses. The scheme will also, therefore, contribute—I freely confess that it will be in a minor, but important, way—to the adjustment process made necessary by CAP reform. An amount of £3 million will be available annually for the capital grants and £1 million for the feasibility and marketing grants. Those sums will be cash-limited.
The degree of interest shown in the scheme so far has been very high. We have already received 71 applications for improvement plans in England alone and more than 2,000 inquiries about the possibility of getting grants on particular diversification projects. This sign of farmers' willingness to adapt and to explore new opportunities is encouraging and, of course, it is only one indication. We see it in many other ways. The range of ideas coming forward is enormous and a tribute to the skill, ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit of the industry.
Diversification is not, of course, a panacea for all.

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: I should press on.
I fully recognise that some farmers will not have the scope for reorganising their businesses to bring in new activities, nor may they have the spare resources in buildings, people and land which can be appropriately diverted to non-agricultural enterprises. Equally, I am bound to say that, as with any new business venture, not all will be successful. An element of risk is inevitably involved. By setting the capital grants at 25 per cent. we hope to stimulate those businesses which might not otherwise be able to get going, but it is the farmer who will need to fund the major part of the capital required.
Where we will be able to provide particular help is in assisting the farmer to plan his new venture sensibly, since careful analysis of all the implications is vital in developing a successful new business. That is why I attach importance to the grants for enterprise feasibility studies and marketing costs that the Bill will allow us to introduce.
During the consultation exercise, several organisations made the point that a greater stimulus was needed in respect of marketing costs, particularly in the first year. Other representations we received asked for higher grant ceilings. I have now decided that non-capital grants of 50 per cent. will be available towards the cost of an enterprise feasibility study and grants of 40, 30 and 20 per cent. degressively over three years towards the cost of employing marketing personnel in the initial phase of a diversified enterprise. Grants will be available to individuals and groups. The ceiling will be £3,000 a year for individuals and £10,000 a year for groups.
The farm diversification scheme is tailored to activities which naturally arise on farms and both types of grant will be available only to farmers. I have been particularly anxious in devising the new scheme to ensure that it complements rather than duplicates or cuts across assistance on rural diversification coming from other agencies, chief among which is the Development Commission and the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, but we have also kept in close touch with tourist boards, the Sports Council, the Countryside Commission and others in developing the new scheme.
In the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service we have a very useful network which will serve as the first point of contact for farmers. ADAS will also be keeping in very close touch with all the agencies that can contribute particular expertise or forms of assistance. We are keen to strengthen the rural economy by encouraging diversity of economic activity within it. The farm diversification scheme will give further encouragement to farmers to play their part in that vital process.
Finally, I draw the House's attention to clause 3, which will increase the limit on the maximum number of members of the Development Commission from eight to 12. That will assist with the merger of the Development Commission and its main agency, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas. It will also make it possible to increase the range of interests represented on the Development Commission proper. I am sure that that will be generally welcomed.
I am glad to have this clause in my Department's Bill because it is symptomatic of how closely we now work with our colleagues at the Department of the Environment, who are responsible for the Development Commission. It also fits in well with the overall rationale of the Bill and with our new policy in relation to alternative land use, which is to encourage, in a variety of ways — some experimental — the alternative use of agricultural land; to encourage more diversity on farms and in the rural economy at large; to encourage more market-oriented and outward looking farming industry; and a different balance between the interests of the countryside and environmental objectives, and those of food production in this new world of surpluses. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

Dr. David Clark: This is a most appropriate time for the House to discuss the Bill, which


is an enabling measure and about which we do not complain. We accept that we are discussing the Bill at a crucial and critical time in the history of agriculture in Britain because the industry is in a state of crisis and turmoil and facing many unknowns. In all the years that I have followed the agricultural and rural scene, I can never remember so much anxiety and uncertainty in the countryside and in farming.
Last week saw the publication of the annual review of agriculture, which confirmed that impression. In real terms, farm income is at its lowest level since the second world war — apart from during one year. In many upland areas, farmers have very small incomes indeed. The imposition of the poll tax will be the last straw for many of them. While we are on the subject of economics, we should note that investment in plant and machinery in agriculture is at a post-war low.
It is small wonder, therefore, that farmers are increasingly debating the virtues of alternatives which, sadly, they may often be ill-equipped to handle. However, I accept that the Bill is an attempt to persuade and to help some farmers to cope with the problems that they might incur in trying to develop alternatives.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that for some curious philosophical reason, on seeing the plight of the farmers, the Government are not saying to them that market forces will solve their problems and that the thrust of entrepreneurial ability will be left isolated, but that the industry will be cushioned yet again by support from the Government, which is a complete philosophical U-turn from their attitude towards manufacturing industry?

Dr. Clark: I take my hon. Friend's point. It is an interesting observation that agriculture does not operate in a free market. Indeed, I should like to make that point at some length a little later.
It is also noteworthy — my hon. Friend has drawn this to my attention—that we are debating the Bill at a time when the European Commission does not have a budget for the current year and, as a result, will run out of money midway through the summer, unless we find a solution. The Prime Minister faces a tough time in Brussels next week, but as long as she stands firm in reducing surpluses significantly, she will have our support.
That brings me aptly to the Government's raison d'etre for introducing the Bill. The House will remember that the first formal intimation of the Government's proposals came in a statement to the House on 9 February 1987 by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). The statement was made in somewhat ignominious circumstances. The Minister was forced to come to the House and to interrupt the debate at 7 o'clock, following an article in the previous day's edition of The Observer which had exposed the Government's secret plans for the countryside. It was so instructive that on the following morning the Minister faced a vote of no confidence — unsuccessfully — at the National Farmers Union annual conference. We are now discussing the formal Bill 12 months later.
It is interesting to read what the Minister said when he announced a review of changes in the CAP and his intention for the package of measures which the Minister rightly outlined to us earlier. The then Minister said:

We have concluded that, given the scale of agriculture surpluses now facing us, a new balance of policies is needed. This will entail less support for expanding production, more attention to the demands of the market, more encouragement of alternative uses of land, mote response to the claims of the environment, and more diversity on farms and in the rural economy." —[Official Report, 9 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 70.]
The House will note that the motive for that laudable change in agricultural direction was the unacceptable level of surplus production, and especially its cost. It is important to emphasise flat. The Government are absolutely correct to do so because it is ludicrous that two thirds of the cost of agricultural support in Europe goes on the storage and disposal of surpluses, or, put another way, only one third of agricultural support goes to the actual producer of the food, the farmer. That cannot be correct. Therefore, the Government are right to try to tackle that issue, although I concede that I do not think that it will be an effective mechanism for tackling the problem.
However, in spite of their fine words on the environment, the Government's response in the Bill has more to do with finance than anything else. Indeed, they have missed the golden opportunity of a more enlightened approach to agriculture and we shall seek to redress that at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. Of course, as the Minister has reminded us, the Bill is only one of the various mechanisms that the Government propose to tackle the problem of surpluses. Others include set-aside, afforestation, capital grants for diversification and stabilisers.
It is worth re-emphasising that the Government have introduced the Bill primarily to reduce surpluses. The Minister returned to that time and again. They have not introduced it to improve the countryside or agricultural practices in themselves.
As a result of their approach, the Government have ignored one of the most positive options of de-intensification or low-input farming. The advantage of that proposal is that it would, by and large, encourage farmers to do what they do best— farm the land. By that approach to agriculture, farmers would cultivate all their land, but less intensively. There would be a lower input of fertilisers and a more benign use of pesticides with the accompanying beneficial side effects on the environment. However, that approach would still retain the machinery and labour on the farm. In addition, it would also allow us to increase food production again if the necessity arose, as well as meeting the present increasing demand for organically produced food.
We believe that that is a much more sensible approach than that of set-aside, whereby farmers are paid simply for doing nothing. I regret that the Minister has been unable to follow that approach in the Bill. Such an approach would also minimise the risk of encouraging farmers to diversify into activities for which they may not have the aptitude or the training. I do not, for one moment, doubt the versatility or entrepreneurship of many engaged in farming. However, I believe that such alternative options may be more attractive at a superficial level than in substance.
We are all aware of the individual and spectacular successes of farm diversification. The manufacturing and marketing of yogurt and other value-added dairy products spring easily to mind. Those enterprises are nothing new. Yesterday, I was interested to see the Tyne-Tees "Farming


Outlook" programme which profiled one such enterprise, Calthwaite farm in Cumbria. The owners of that farm, the Pattinsons, are no ordinary farmers.
At one time the family owned a mill in West Cumberland. They moved to Calthwaite farm about 30 years ago and astutely identified a niche for themselves with the production of high quality dairy milk from pedigree Jerseys. That production made them exceptional. Later, they diversified into the manufacture of yogurts and other products. Currently, they are marketing those products extremely successfully throughout the north of England. They developed their business most skilfully and with great business acumen. They have constantly reappraised their business and, on one occasion, reshaped their venture—when they thought they were growing too quickly—by reducing their work force from 80 to 28.
I emphasise the example of the Pattinson family because they are aware of the need to re-assess continually the feasibility of their operation. In doing so they have made considerable use of advice from the Department of Trade and Industry. Does the Minister believe that the new farm diversification schemes will include advice from his Department or the Department of Trade and Industry? In the past it appears that the Department of Trade and Industry has given such advice. Let me emphasise that we are talking about business and industry and not so much about traditional farming.
The Pattinsons are not unique; there are many other examples in every county. For example, there is Longley farm, owned by the Dickinson family, in Holmfirth. However, it is important to emphasise that there are only a limited number of farms that can diversify into yogurt, dairy products or indeed tourist accommodation or golf courses. There are only a limited number of outlets for such activities.
To revert to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), one of the key difficulties that farmers might not appreciate is that they have traditionally been used to a guaranteed market, but in their diversified businesses they will normally have to fight for their particular share of the market. I do not believe that that can be repeated too often.

Mr. MacGregor: indicated assent.

Dr. Clark: I note that the Minister is nodding his head and I am aware that the Government are aware of that difficulty.
Clause 1 makes provision for grants to be paid to farmers for feasibility studies into projected alternative businesses. It is significant that the Government have made provision for the payment of grants towards the capital expenditure of diversified business before making provision towards the cost of the feasibility studies. That is putting the cart before the horse. The Minister has been ill advised to rush ahead with the end product before he has allowed farmers the opportunity to benefit from the grant for feasibility studies.
One of the crucial issues in the successful establishment of any new business is planning consent. Numerous farmers have built up successful farm-related businesses only to fall foul of local planning or highway authorities at a later stage. The Minister is aware that often there is

no need for planning consent when a small business is getting off the ground, but at a later stage planning consent is necessary.
The classic case is that of the North Yorkshire farmer, Brian Moore, who built up his ice-cream business to such a successful scale that he was required to obtain planning permission. The objections to his operation did not come from the urban dwellers — the townies—who enjoyed visiting his farm shop, but from his rural neighbours who felt the negative effects of his success in the form of increased traffic and the loss of privacy. It is worth emphasising that farmers represent only a small proportion of our rural population.
We recognise that the successful development of alternative businesses on farms may have the potential for serious conflicts of interest. Will the Government make it clear that they do not countenance any weakening of the well-tried local planning system? That planning system has stood us well over time and I believe that it would be a retrogressive step if it were weakened.
I specifically ask that question because I know that the Government, are contemplating—indeed, the Minister mentioned it earlier today — limiting the consultation process with local authorities for any farm woodlands under 10 hectares. We believe that that is a retrograde move. For the long-term viability of the new farm ventures, whether business or woodland, we believe that it is essential that local approval and, if possible, consensus, is reached at the outset. That precludes difficulties at a later stage. I urge the Minister to consider that matter most carefully.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Is my hon. Friend aware that 10 hectares of forestry represents at least 25,000 trees? To allow 25,000 trees to be planted without consultation or without any local involvement in the decision-making is excessively generous.

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend has made a pertinent point. Ten hectares may be intrusive on the local environment, and one can imagine that in a particularly sensitive environment or landscape, which may not be in the accepted areas outlined by the Minister, even one acre may be intrusive. I believe that there must be much more consultation with local authorities.
The Minister may say that the Forestry Commission will be consulted. However, will he send a circular to the Forestry Commission to draw its attention to the requirement of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 that imposes a duty on the Forestry Commission to pay regard to environment and conservation? I believe that that would be a useful exercise.
Clause 2 deals, quite rightly, with farm woodlands. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has reminded us, farm woodland may greatly affect the face of our countryside. Obviously it is desirable to plant more trees and redress the loss of 40 per cent. of the broadleaved woodland that existed in 1947. Furthermore, we are still losing hedgerows at the rate of I mile for every daylight hour of the year.

Mr. Andy Stewart: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hardy: It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head.

Dr. Clark: I do not know if any hon. Member is seeking to argue about that statistic. It was produced by the


Countryside Commission in 1985 with finance from the Department of the Environment. They are not my figures, but the Government's figures.
More trees and farm woodlands would not only add to the aesthetic value of our landscape, but would enrich the habitats of our native wildlife. However, what type of tree should be planted, and where? Obviously, there is concern that our lowlands may be covered with a boring blanket of conifers. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) has already raised that point. The Ministry has tried to avoid that. problem by offering larger grants for deciduous trees, but even then it is aiming for only one third of the plantings to be deciduous and has no power to insist on that proportion.
When pressed in the other place on that issue, the Minister refused to include in the Bill any clause relating to the proportion of deciduous trees to be planted. The argument was that 64 per cent. of private sector planting under the Forestry Commission grant schemes in lowland England was of that type. If private sector planting is currently achieving a rate of 64 per cent. of deciduous trees, and that is the going rate, why can that not be included in the legislation or in the statutory instrument? That would be logical. Will the Minister reconsider increasing the level and requirement of deciduous planting?
The Forestry Commission and private forestry in Scotland have an excellent record of allowing the public access to their land. As considerable public money is now to be invested in farm woodlands in lowland Britain, what proposals do the Government have in mind to ensure that there is adequate public access to those woodlands?
Clause 3 seeks to increase the membership of the Development Commission. I was interested to see that clause in a Ministry of Agriculture Bill. As the Minister said, we are pleased that the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture are working together. Would that that were always the case. We look forward to seeing a happy development along those lines. We agree that the Development Commission has a vital role to play in the revitalisation of the rural economy, and we are happy to support that move. However, we urge the Minister to ensure that at least some of the new appointees have wide environmental and conservation expertise.
While, generally, the Development Commission has a good track record, there is some evidence that of late it has been carried away by its own enthusiasm. I specifically have in mind its support of a golf course complex in rural Northumberland, which now includes the proposal to build 60 to 80 houses for permanent occupation in the green belt. Hon. Members will recall that that led to the famous gaffe by the Secretary of State for the Environment that there were no golf courses in the northeast of England. He was wrong. There are more than 90 in north-east England. The presence of a sound environmentalist on the commission might have helped to avoid that difficulty.
We give the Bill a cautious welcome, but certain aspects of it still concern us. In particular, we feel that it is too narrow and that it does not encourage the farmer to develop his own farming skills in an environmentally sustainable manner. Furthermore, we see the risk of stampeding the farming community into establishing diversified, farm-related industries which they lack the expertise and training to operate. By decreasing liaison with the local planning authority, there will be a danger

of increasing conflicts locally if businesses flourish and woodlands develop. There a re weaknesses in the Bill, and we shall seek to improve it at a later stage.

Sir Charles Morrison: There are two characteristics of any debate about forestry and trees. The first is an expression of general hatred for the poor unfortunate conifer, and the second is a furious demand for the right of access so that people can see the conifers. I have never quite understood that conundrum, but it has happened repeatedly for as long as I have been a Member of Parliament. I shall refer to some of the points made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) later in my remarks.
The context of the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has reminded us, is the over-production of agricultural commodities, and the consequent need to reduce agricultural surpluses. No one would claim that the Bill is, or will be, the last word on the subject, or that it will come anywhere near a solution of the problems of excess production, which stem from the amazing advances made in agricultural science, and those advances being put into practice by able farmers and skilled farm workers. Nevertheless, the Bill is another small step in the right direction of containing the output of food. Therefore, it is to be warmly welcomed.
The methods proposed for the reduction of output are, in clause 1, the diversification of farm businesses, and, in clause 2 the conversion of farm land into farm woodland. I should like to say a few words about each of those clauses. Clause 1 seeks to stimulate investment in a variety of alternative farm enterprises and to encourage effective marketing. Assistance is to be given to businesses involving horses, particularly livery stables and, in the uplands only, horses for hire. The general principle of giving assistance seems excellent, but why for horses for hire in the uplands only?
The demand for riding horses and ponies is huge and growing, particularly in areas adjacent to towns, some distance away from the uplands. Why is assistance not to be available nearer towns? If it were, it would encourage the removal of more good agricultural land from food production. That would cut surpluses more than in upland areas.
Horses and ponies, to a far greater extent than has yet been recognised, can help the Minister to overcome excess production problems. More people want to ride horses and ponies as a recreation; therefore, more horses and ponies need to be bred, and more acres need to be set aside for their keep and use. It is worth noting that even now, the latest national equestrian survey estimates that there are more than 1 million households in Britain in which someone rides a horse, and about 3·3 million people ride regularly.
The horse and pony breeding industry alone uses about 293,000 acres. Furthermore, labour intensity in breeding establishments is much higher than it is on general agricultural land, involving about one person per 23 acres compared with one person per 132 acres in agriculture generally. Thus, in addition, horse and pony breeding establishments are a good means of sustaining rural employment, and the demand for horses to ride is growing.
The little help that the Bill offers is welcome, but i7rom every point of view—above all from that of my right hon. Friend the Minister — if might be worth being a


little bolder. I must add that the use of land for horses will not be increased or helped unless the Government act to equate horse and pony breeding with other agricultural activities by derating it, as was the case from the mid-1930s until 1981 and the recent outcome of the Whitsbury stud test case when the courts decided, contrary to a 1930s judgment, that horse and pony breeding establishments should be rated.
There seems to be little point in encouraging better opportunities, as the Bill does, while elsewhere there are new deterrents to the breeding and maintenance or horses. I know that this is not a subject that can be dealt with in this Bill, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the deterrent that the newly imposed burden of rating on horse and pony breeding establishments has on breeders and the adverse effect it could have on possible alternative land use.
I have no doubt that clause 2 will be an encouragement to farmers to reconvert some of their land to farm woodlands. I was glad to hear from my right hon. Friend today about the National Farmers Union-CLA-RICS agreement. It is a credit to all those concerned, and undoubtedly it will be helpful in the achievement of my right hon. Friend's objectives.
I said "reconvert" some of the land to forestry, because it should be remembered that in times past much more of our countryside was wooded, incidentally providing variety, windbreaks and cover for wildlife. We import about 90 per cent of our timber needs, so it must be sensible to use more of our land for timber production. The environmental benefit is an excellent extra bonus.
I shall now deal with one of the points made by the hon. Member for South Shields. I must express my regret that in another place — and apparently so far here — the Government have remained unprepared to accept a new clause that would have provided a third method in their armoury of weapons aimed at cutting surpluses. That method goes under the terrible title of de-intensification. Putting it simply, it would involve a return to more traditional and simpler forms of farm production.
A variety of schemes could be considered, but, for the most part, they would limit, or even disallow, the use of fertilisers and chemical sprays. Clearly, organic farming would qualify and so would the conservation headlands that have been pioneered by the Game Conservancy Trust. Such schemes would have a double benefit. They would reduce production and be enormously advantageous for environmental conservation. In passing, I must give credit to my right hon. Friend for including conservation headlands in the Breckland environmentally sensitive area. However, their application could be much more general and beneficial.
The effect of the headlands in terms of the regrowth of wild arable flora is astounding. The seed bank, which still happily exists in the land, and the consequential effect of the germination of seeds from that bank on insect and bird life has to be seen to be believed. It is a pity that there is not a de-intensification clause, even of the Government do not immediately wish to make use of its provisions on the basis that they may wish to carry out more research before doing so. In spite of that reservation, I welcome the Bill for what it proposes and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on taking another step in the right direction.

Mr. Tony Benn: I ask for the indulgence of the House because I have not participated in an agriculture debate before. I hope that my interest in the Bill will become apparent as I proceed. I should like to congratulate the civil servants who drafted the Minister's speech because it gave new meaning to the old phrase about not being able "to see the wood for the trees".
The reality is that the Bill derives from the total failure of the common agricultural policy. It seems inconceivable that the Minister did not mention the fact that on television we hear of starvation in the Third world, while he is boasting that he hopes to reduce food production in Britain and that the Common Market will be reducing food production too. An incapacity to relate world needs and world resources is one of the great problems facing humanity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is also a Member of the European Parliament, told me that the CAP costs about £11–50 per family per week. That is to pay farmers to reduce production and to bring about—this new phrase—de-intensification. When the miners of south Wales object to six-day working at Margam, I shall advise them to talk about de-intensification. It is really a way of saying that if more people could be employed with lower productivity in economic terms, one is serving a purpose that the Government want.
The farmers are in trouble. One has only to listen to "Farming Today", which is one of my regular diets, to know how serious the problem is and why so many farmers have come to participate in the debate on the Bill tonight.
I read the Bill with considerable interest. In particular, I read clause 1. It talks about the power to give grants for
the establishment or expansion of a farm business".
It talks about grants for
the establishment or expansion, for purposes connected with the establishment, expansion or carrying on of such a farm business
or
the promotion of such a farm business
or
the marketing of anything produced".
The Bill began to ring a bell. It is the same as my Industry Bill of 1975. I have with me the very copy of that Bill which I took through the House against bitter Tory opposition. That Bill dealt with the establishment of the National Enterprise Board. It talks about assistance to make a grant and the
assistance of the economy of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom;
(b) the promotion in any part of the United Kingdom of industrial efficiency.
It states:
The functions of the Board shall be—
(a) establishing, maintaining or developing, or promoting or assisting the establishment, maintenance or development of any industrial enterprise".
That Bill was introduced by a dangerous man about whom I read in the newspapers from time to time—myself. The Bill was designed to deal with the problems in industry that have now hit agriculture. Community membership damaged our industry by exposing it to competition from the more competitive German and French industry. The common agricultural policy raised the cost of food in this country instead of adopting the old farm support scheme introduced after the war.
The Minister has drafted the first Bill for a Socialist Government in Britain. It is nice to have the Queen's Speech drafted for us by the Conservative party. I would make only two amendments to the Bill. The first would be to delete the words "Farm Land and Rural Development" and call it the "Development Bill", and secondly, so as not to make the farmers left out, because I sympathise with them as with others, I would add "and others".
The Conservative party has lectured the miners year after year for their failure to be productive or competitive and in the Bill the Government are subsidising—that is the word, and I have no objection to the idea—farmers, faced not with foreign competition, but with the absurdity of the agricultural support scheme that flows from our membership of the Common Market.
There is another issue about which I am concerned. I hardly dare mention it because it is so reminiscent of the nanny state we are supposed to be repudiating. That issue is the power of the Minister to
impose requirements to be complied with by persons applying for the grants.
Local authorities are not allowed to do such things. They are not allowed to have contract compliance so as not to have to buy from South Africa. The Labour Government would no doubt use clause 2(2)(b) to
confer a discretion on the appropriate Minister …
(c) to provide for the grants to be paid to persons on such terms as may be specified in or determined".
It is interesting that the Bill proves once and for all that this is not a monetarist Government. I never believed that they were. I never thought that the Prime Minister sat up at night with a cold towel round her head reading the works of Milton Friedman — however attractive, given the alternative, that might have seemed — before going to bed. The Government are paying their supporters for the support they depend on in the shires. The Bill reveals the Conservative party as having an absolutely simple pork-barrel view of how to get back into power.

Sir Charles Morrison: rose—

Mr. Benn: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman. Short of the newly elected president of the National Union of Mineworkers, nobody could have done better for the industry of which he is a member.

Sir Charles Morrison: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his remarks with the fact that the Government have invested some £5.5 billion in the coal mining industry since 1979, at a rate of about £2 million per working day, and, what is more, plan to invest another £2 billion over the next two years?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman should allow himself to be led down that path; it does not relate to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Benn: Like the cavalry, Madam Deputy Speaker, you save me from a tempting diversion, although I do not notice this Government now, at this stage, allowing food from South Africa to come in without restraint, which would automatically not be permitted under this Bill.
Why do the farmers need the money? It is partly because of the problem that I described and partly because tenant farmers are having to pay rising rents to their landlords for their land. As with all land, the price of agricultural land has risen very sharply. High land prices are creating the urban crisis of high rents in housing in the towns and pressure on tenant farmers in the countryside.
The money paid to farmers under the Bill will go in part to landlords. I again congratulate the legal department of the Ministry on explaining, through the Minister, the difficulty and complexity of landlord-tenant relations in agricultural legislation. If one wants to bring rents down, it would be better to bring them down by common ownership.
Lest any hon. Member should think that this is a new idea that has emerged from what is now known laughingly as the "Champagne" group of Labour Members, I remind the House that the idea of common ownership is a very old idea. The idea that the earth is "a common treasury" and that it is "a crime to buy and sell the land for private gain" goes back to the 17th century.
And for the benefit of the Liberal party—whichever of its factions is here today—I was brought up on Lloyd George's land song:
The land, the land, the land on which we stand,
Why should we be paupers with the ballot in our hand?
I therefore hope that I may be acquitted of introducing a controversial note by taliking about the common ownership of land.
The private ownership of land was the result of a medieval privatisation. I have been to the Library to look at the Enclosure Acts, under which common land was sold to the rich farmers, just as British Telecom, British Gas and British Petroleum were sold. It was the Enclosure Acts that took the common land and gave it to the landlords, who are now to have their rent subsidised through a grant, in the guise of providing money for woodlands.
I have introduced a little Bill, which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to read. Its purpose is to bring the land into common ownership—except for owner-occupied land, which is a different case. The rent of all the land in this country would amount to £70 billion a year. That would cover the full costs of the rates and the rate support grant. It would be the answer to the poll tax, which I understand my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are working on very carefully—and listening as they do it. The answer to the problem of the poll tax is the common ownership of land, which is in the constitution of the party of which I happen to be a member.
For all the reasons that I have given, I shall support the Bill with enthusiasm. If there is a Division, I shall go into the Lobby with the Minister, because I believe that what he has done, in a flash of rhetoric—albeit perhaps riot fashioned by his own pen—is to expose the nature of the Conservative party. It is a party that does not believe in free enterprise, in the Common Market, in monetarism or viability. It believes—as any party naturally would—in winning power. As Samuel Gompers once said:
Reward your friends and punish your enemies.
This Bill rewards the Minister's friends and, meanwhile, his enemies are being punished in the mining areas of Britain. Incidentally, I never heard any argument about the environmental advantages of coal over nuclear power, although we have heard today the environmental argument for woodlands.
At this late stage in the third term of the Prime Minister, who is evidently going on for ever and ever, it is refreshing to find at long last that we know the true nature of the Conservative party. It has come out in the Bill and, if necessary, I shall be a Teller for the Ayes. Otherwise, I shall raise my voice loudly in its support and thank the Minister for the clarity that he has brought to such an important subject.

Sir John Farr: I hope that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument. He should be reminded that the reason for the success of agriculture, which has brought about the surpluses, is that over the past 10, 15 or 20 years there has been a massive annual increase in productivity.
I see that the right hon. Gentleman has turned his back; he will not even do Conservative Members the courtesy of listening. The present problem of agricultural surpluses has been brought about by the tremendous increase in efficiency and productivity year by year, which has left the coal mining industry and every type of manufacturing industry miles behind and in another street. That unparalleled success, brought about by intensive mechanisation, accounts for our problem of surplus. That is a far better problem with which to have to deal than the problem of shortages that we have in our coalfields, which means that we are having to import cheap coal from all over the world. I am proud of what British agriculture has done with Government aid.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on his important remarks. He referred in particular to clause 1, which deals with the diversification of farm businesses. He also said that it was necessary to get improved planning consent arrangements. As it happens, my reason for speaking is to illustrate to the House the difficulties that people who want to expand are facing in obtaining planning consent. In the east midlands, we have a very active branch of the National Farmers Union, which covers the counties of Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland. That branch has repeatedly had difficulties with local planning authorities which have failed to give approval for bringing redundant farm buildings into use again.
In December, the local NFU wrote to me about a case which came up a few weeks ago. One of my constituents, who often lets out work in his farm, has a large grain dryer which is a redundant farm building. His daughter and son-in-law have set up a computer business, which they run from part of the grain dryer. Planning permission was refused, and I was sent a copy of the correspondence. The Harborough district council's refusal, dated 19 December, relating to the conversion and use of the farm building for storage, offices, craft shop and workroom at Wood lane, Tugby is worth quoting to the House. It gives us an example of an obstructive local authority that has not changed with the times. The refusal states:
The site lies in the countryside and the proposal is contrary to policy L/SE14 contained in the Structure Plan for Leicestershire … whereby development normally will not be permitted in such areas except where it can be shown that it is essential for the efficient operation of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, recreation, public utilities or tourism. The District Planning Authority is not aware of any special circumstances which would justify setting aside this policy. The site is prominent in this pleasant rural landscape and approval of the use proposed would have an adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality.
The NFU received the refusal in December and the group secretary, Mr. Theakston, asked me to raise the matter in the House because, repeatedly, local authorities, such as Harborough district council, continue to give adverse responses to applications to save redundant farm buildings from complete and utter dereliction. The purpose of this admirable Bill is to keep those old

buildings in use. We have entrepreneurs who want to retain the buildings in the countryside, but time and again local authorities bar them. In his letter of 16 December Mr. Theakston stated:
In the meantime I am still interested in the principle of why the Government has made encouraging noises for conversion of redundant farm buildings to rural industry, yet this has not percolated through to local Planning Authorities.
It is all very well passing this Bill, but it is meaningless if there is a network of obstructive local authorities. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, who replied on 27 January, saying:
Since 1980 we have consistently urged planning authorities to treat applications for the re-use of redundant farm buildings sympathetically … . Permission for the re-use of redundant farm buildings should therefore be granted unless there are specific and convincing planning objections.
Clearly, my right hon. Friend must encourage the Minister for Housing and Planning to do more than merely "urge" local authorities to behave in that way.
The Minister has been kind enough to send me a couple of booklets—one published in 1987 and the other in 1985 — dealing with this matter. Both have been circulated to local authorities, but local authorities seem to be determined to turn their backs on what I regard as not progress, but maintenance of an existence. I hope that my right hon. Friend will urge the Minister for Housing and Planning to look again to see whether local authorities should not be more than just "urged".
I agree with my right hon. Friend on forestry. I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) said about the terrible word "de-intensification". It is not a double negative, but a double positive and it could be improved on. It is a weapon which Ministers could bear in mind. I understand that in the other place a new clause on de-intensification was discussed and that the Government took on board some of the points raised. If a new clause were introduced in Committee, it would help with some of the nitrate excesses, chemical excesses the factory farming and outlook of agriculture and it would possibly reduce some of the worse excesses of the intensive farming system. A de-intensification clause would provide additional encouragement.
I welcome what is said about forestry in clause 2. The new payment of grants towards expenditure incurred in the conversion of agriculture land to woodland is long overdue and badly needed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree in Committee that some improvements can be made to the Bill. It would be helpful if there were a form of indexation for the payment of grants so that they keep pace with inflation.
I particularly welcome what my right hon. Friend said about co-operation between the CLA and the NFU and the agreement which has now been reached to make available to tenant farmers the available grants after agreement with the landlords through the CLA. I am also particularly pleased to welcome the four main objectives of the farm woodland scheme, which are to enhance the landscape, to encourage recreation and tourism, to contribute to supporting farm income and to maintain or stimulate rural improvement.
This is a good Bill and certainly it will not be opposed tonight. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing it.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I have waited nearly 15 years for the opportunity to debate tree planting. It has been a tradition in our family from my great grandfather down to myself to plant thousands of trees annually. I shall say a few words from my experience of tree planting in the less-favoured areas in the mountains of Wales.
To help the Minister and perhaps the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on their way —I should be a little worried if I saw them going into the same Lobby; I am sure that I would go the other way—over the past 80 years my grandfather, father and I have planted more than 10 per cent. of all the land in the less-favoured areas, and we have been able to increase our stocking rating over the years as we take more land out of production to plant trees. The simple reason is that sheep like shelter. We have planted small plantations of up to 10 acres, not hundreds or thousands of acres, and we have been fortunate in having grants from the Ministry. This year I shall go in for similar schemes.
About 20 years ago, when I was keen to plant about 20,000 Sitka spruce and Japanese larch on a particular piece of land, permission was not granted. Nevertheless, I planted the trees and today they are worth looking at.
The everyday reality for farmers is that they have to come to terms with a changing market and control of food surpluses. Following the introduction, with such indecent haste, of milk quotas, thousands of dairy farmers found themselves in heavy debt. The rural economy has been undermined seriously. Only last week, five creameries—one in my constituency and another in that of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones)—were scheduled to close, with the loss of hundreds of jobs. I warn the Government that producers of other commodities face similar difficulties.
On behalf of hill farmers in less-favoured areas, I plead with the Minister not to dismantle the sheepmeat regime. Farmers are pleased and satisfied with it. It is a wonderful regime and it has been with us for decades.
We must welcome any attempt to help farmers and improve the rural economy. The Bill is a small step in the right direction, though it will not solve the problem of surpluses and not every farmer will be able to benefit from it. The Minister will find it difficult to persuade many farmers to go in for tree planting. I have tried to persuade many of my friends in Cardiganshire, but they will not do it. I hope that the Minister and his team will be more successful in persuading hill farmers to plant trees.
This is a constructive measure which has received general support from farming unions and conservation bodies. One criticism voiced by farming unions is the failure to find a way of including areas of permanent pasture which could qualify for the farm woodland scheme. Paradoxically, they are the areas where farmers are least able to diversify and where many farm incomes are coming under pressure.
I understand the Minister to say that he is considering giving farmers a chance to plant land that has been cultivated during the past three or five years. I am anxious that the planting of broadleaved trees should be encouraged as much as possible. I like, however, to see a conifer growing here and there— I have planted many thousands of them.
With respect to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), conifers have been criticised a little too much by many people. The Sitka and the Scots pine are beautiful trees if they are not planted too thickly. The mistake that has been made in Wales as well as in Scotland and England is that thousands of acres have been planted with conifers. It would have been better if those in charge of the Forestry Commission had planted, say, 1,000 acres, left another 1,000 and then planted the next 1,000, rather than plant all of a 10,000-acre plot.
There may not be sufficient assurances that the annual payments will keep pace with inflation. I believe that there is an argument for making the commitment to review the scheme a more positive statement.
Although my grandfather planted many trees, as did my father after him and as t have, I do not think that we have made one penny out of it. We like the trees and we will leave them. My advice to the Minister is to carry on with the planting. I shall give him all the advice that I can if he needs help, but I do not think that he does. Since he took office after the general election last year, he has not, with respect, given farming much encouragement.
I know that the Minister finds it difficult to persuade his counterparts in Europe, but farmers are looking for encouragement. We all shout at the farming community to produce less, but we cannot expect farmers then to produce less when they are offered no incentives—only a freeze at the annual price fixing. We cannot penalise the farmers and expect them to produce less. That situation cannot go on. I hope that the Minister will persuade the Prime Minister to give extra financial aid so that he, in turn, can look after the interests of the farming community much better in future years than he has over the past four years.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), and I endorse very much of what he said.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not in his place. His speech was such fun that one could not take it seriously. He told us that he starts each day by listening to farming programmes on the radio. He may well listen to them, but I fear that he understands and learns little from them. His speech was a treat of a grandiose Socialist extravaganza, but irrelevant to the debate.
I welcome the Bill as a quiet and relatively uncontroversial aspect of the Government's policy, which seeks to discourage the production of surpluses and encourage the creation of a more soundly based rural economy. The central points of the debate are well known to us and I shall be brief. I want to refer only to the farm woodlands scheme and its environmental and wildlife implications.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) referred to the exclusion of permanent pastures from the scheme. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food knows that this worries the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association. The measure will remove from the scope of the scheme one third of agricultural land in England and a higher proportion of agricultural land in Wales. It removes a great deal of the wetter, heavier soil of the west country and of the north of England, which are


among the best parts of the country for growing trees. In such areas, options for diversification are few and farm incomes are under greatest pressure. It is to be regretted that the scheme is not more widely applied, and I hope that further thought will be given to it, even at this stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) spoke of the need to index payments. This is an important point. I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to increase the amounts from his original proposal. I welcome the fact that he is prepared to review the scheme after three years and then at least every five years. The scheme will lack confidence unless this indexing can be achieved.
The need for annual review of a different sort has been put forward by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has contributed so much to debates about the Bill. The RSPB is surprised that the Bill makes no provision to review the effects of the scheme annually and the extent to which it achieves its objectives. The argument is for a statutory annual review. Taxpayers' money is being used and the environmental impact should be monitored. It can be argued that the scheme should have greater monitoring.
To be effective, the scheme must be readily available to tenant farmers. All hon. Members welcomed the statement at the beginning of my right hon. Friend's speech. I am glad that a formula has been produced, whereby tenancy agreements can be readily adapted. Unless the scheme is readily available to tenants, it will be seriously weakened.
I wish to make a number of observations about the implications for the environment and wildlife. Much fear has been expressed that the small areas of conservation value will be badly affected. The Government propose to reduce the consultation process for small developments of less than 10 hectares. The Nature Conservancy Council and others fear that less consultation will mean less protection. We still look for reassurance from the Minister that this will not be the case.
There is anxiety about the impact of the scheme on unimproved land, on which 3,000 hectares of planting will be targeted. That will benefit hill farmers and bring back to the uplands birch and oak woods, but the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says that those uplands are inhabited by important species of wild birds, especially greenshank and curlew. We look for more reassurance from the Minister that those interests will be safeguarded.
Much the same could be said about improved agricultural land of conservation value. Many improved pastures have reverted to rough grass and rushes. Those pastures are breeding habitats for many species of wading birds. We want reassurances that improved pastures will not be turned into woodland and unimproved land ploughed up, thus doubly damaging wildlife habitats.
I should mention a final point on o which we need clarification. In a letter to many Members of Parliament, the National Farmers Union expressed the belief
that the exact mixture of broadleaf and conifer trees in each plantation is best left to local negotiation between the interested parties.
What does the Minister understand by the term "interested parties"? Are environmental organisations involved? On what criteria should interested parties base their judgment, and will those criteria include planned provision of wildlife habitat?
Although some points need further consideration, the Bill should be welcomed. Above all, in its implementation, the greatest care should be taken to ensure that the farm woodland scheme enhances the beauty of the countryside and effectively protects and promotes wildlife.

Mr. Elliott Morley: As a Member of Parliament for a largely rural constituency, I give a general welcome to the Bill, but I also wish to mention the balance between the needs of the farming community and the environmental needs which we all share as a community. I hope that when he replies the Minister will clarify some parts of the Bill. On diversification in farming, will nature trails or wetland habitats in the form of nature parks be eligible for grant? Will the environmental impact on a scheme be carefully considered before, instead of after, aid is given, so that a scheme which may have an undesirable environmental effect can be rejected?
Hon. Members have talked about marginal land and ploughing up meadowland. Could a farmer receive a grant for planting trees and then plough up empty marginal land to plant crops, thereby not only receiving the grant for the woodland but retaining the capacity and defeating the purpose of the Bill?
I understand that areas of outstanding natural beauty will not count under the terms of the 10-hectare limit. That is a glaring omission from the Bill.
I see some benefit in granting aid for planting in severely disadvantaged areas, especially if it includes the planting of indigenous species, including broadleaf trees. But the schemes could affect the habitat of breeding birds in those areas, and some of the rarer species, including the merlin and the hen harrier, are under threat. The Minister will be well aware of the controversy that is raging in the flow country about the effect of such tree schemes on those habitats.
I am concerned that insufficient emphasis is given to the involvement of local authorities in the schemes. There has been criticism of local authorities that have stopped the development of rural areas and farm building, but local authorities have a responsibility to the whole community. While I am in favour of diversification, I am not in favour of it at any price. Local authorities should have a say in any sort of scheme; they should give their point of view and protect the needs of the whole community.
Hon. Members have mentioned monitoring of the schemes; annual monitoring is important, and it is also important that assistance be given to farmers who plant woodlands. For many of them it will be a new venture in a new business. So I hope that any woodland scheme will be staged and staggered so that when it comes to cropping the woodlands in the future, they will not all be cleared in one go, but in stages. I am sure that such advice is available to the people concerned. The Bill is an important step forward, but I would appreciate some assurances from the Minister on the points that I have raised.

Mr. David Curry: I want to raise two themes that are important to the success of diversification generally and my constituency in particular —planning permission, which has already been aired at length tonight, and Sunday trading, which is important in the context of an integrated rural economy.
My constituency consists of large tracts of Yorkshire Dales national park. When growing trees there, conifers arc an important element as a nursery crop to afford protection from hostile weather to the broadleafs that are growing in association with them. My constituency also consists of an important part of green belt between Leeds and Harrogate in which, among many others, Mr. Moore lives — a fact which Opposition Members have mentioned. I think that he will fall on his feet at the end of the day, because he is an enterprising person. There is also some high quality arable land in the vale of Mowbray.
So my constituency is a microcosm of the countryside of Britain. If the programme of farm diversification is to work, it must work there. It is also a major tourist area of wilderness and urban fringe. Planning delays, perhaps more importantly than restrictions, coupled with Sunday trading, are in danger of being an unintentional instrument for the destruction of jobs and opportunity—precisely the sort of opportunity that the farm diversification programme seeks to create.
The national parks present their own problems, and the work of COSIRA and the Development Commission is important in that context. This Friday, I shall have the pleasure of presenting some COSIRA awards in my constituency.
The green belt is a harder problem. It is easy enough to read economic lessons on how anti-economic the effect of the green belt is, but there is a clash of legitimate interests in it. There are no villains; there is a lack of consensus, if that is not an unparliamentary expression, about what the countryside should do. It extends to relations between some Government Departments, although I am delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister that emissaries have been exchanged between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment.
We see the dangers and the problems when we read the reports of inspectors who have the misfortune of trying to adjudicate cases sent to them on appeal. In practice, they are trying to reconcile opposing advice. In trying to reconcile different interests, that opposing advice remains at odds. We do not want a landscaped people, with suburban Marie Antoinettes playing shepherds and shepherdesses in an ephemeral Ruritania; we want a working countryside. Equally, residents who have purchased for amenity have the right to expect that necessary developments will be sensitive to that amenity in scale and nature. Unless there are clear guidelines based on such a consensus, plans for rural development will sink beneath the quicksands of innumerable planning subcommittees.
If the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has sent emissaries to the Department of the Environment, I invite it also to send an ambassador to the Home Office, because Sunday trading is also an important issue affecting the rural economy. Shops in most small villages and towns are able to open for trading in the summer. The problem arises in winter because small shops which take perhaps as much as one third or one half of their takings on Sunday need to be able to cater for the tourist trade. That is vital for small shops. The villages are the focus of visits and the visitors then spread out to the farms and to the various other amenities offered by the farm diversification scheme.
Shops are at the mercy of an arbitrary and asinine law that shuts shops in one village and leaves them open in

another, and that closes one market square and allows another to trade. That is not the fault of local authorities which have no option but to apply the law once a complaint has been received. Perhaps the law has a right to be an ass, but it must not be an indiscriminate ass in its application. There is no point in farms setting up businesses that require retail operations if the law then closes them down on the day on which they are likely to do most of their trade.
The Government must not funk this issue. It is intensely destructive to the rural economy, especially in the tourist-orientated areas such as the national parks in the northern uplands.
When we talk about farm diversification, as often as not we are inviting the farmer's wife to take more responsibility, because a major part of the diversified activity may fall to the wife. I recommend that an emissary be sent to the Treasury to sort out the married worried woman's tax treatment. That is a major disincentive to farmers' wives to mount this sort of collaborative enterprise. A little help in that direction will do a great deal more than a whole string of marketing aids.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Minister emphasised the co-operation between his Department and the Department of the Environment and certain other agencies. I am sure that we all welcome that. He devoted a good portion of his speech to clause 2. That deals with tree planting, and, as he said, we in Northern Ireland already have the necessary authorities and mechanisms in place.
I am mainly concerned about clause 1, which deals with farm businesses. I am sure that grants under this heading will be very welcome. What farmer has ever declined grant assistance? Farmers are an enterprising race, and most of them will make a success of their business, grant or no grant. Their main problem will be not finance, but, as some hon. Members have pointed out, the attitude of planning authorities. To some extent the Bill renders that attitude obsolete.
I do not advocate the wholesale scrapping of planning safeguards; I merely suggest the introduction of some common sense. Common sense has not always been very evident in some planning decisions. I shall give one example. A farmer with suitable premises opened a farm shop to dispose of his own produce. Seasonal fluctuations in supply forced him to purchase produce from other sources. Immediately, the planners pounced and finally ordered him to revert to own produce or close down. Then, wonder of wonders, along came Marks and Spencer with a planning application for a massive supermarket within a few hundred yards of that farm shop. That application has been granted. When I was asked for my view, I said that I would accept the own-produce restriction on the farm shop if Marks and Spencer could be required similarly to sell only goods produced on its new site.
In view of the Minister's mention of co-operation between Departments and agencies, I hope and trust that Ministers in the Departments concerned, who have a reputation for tenacity and fairness, will see that the Government's approach to this matter is a seamless robe.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I wish to speak briefly in this important debate on behalf of the west


country, and particularly South Hams. As the House may know, my constituency, which is mostly south Devon, consists of designated areas, known as areas of outstanding natural beauty. Little of South Hams is not designated as such. Nearly 70 miles of my constituency are "heritage coastline": conservation areas, areas of great landscape value, sites of special scientific interest and, of course, part of the Dartmoor national park.
What has kept the area so beautiful? It has really been the farmers, who have done a tremendous job in looking after the land. What concerns me, and other west country Members, is how we are to find solutions to the problem of conserving such a wonderful part of the country, when the production and income of those farmers are to be reduced. If diversification grants fall short, how will the farmers maintain the area? They cannot be expected to turn into golf course pros or safari park attendants. Areas such as South Hams need special grants to protect them.
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister, when he replies to the debate, say whether he is considering giving grants to farmers who are farming areas of outstanding natural beauty, such as the lower slopes of Dartmoor? I do not see how such areas can be maintained on the present grant. If the Bill is fully put into practice, the planners will inevitably be under enormous pressure to relax their regimes. Many disused barns will be used for small craft workshops; hillsides will be used for modern housing and urban sprawl.
Ivybridge, a small town in my constituency, contained 2,000 souls 10 years ago. There will be 14,000 there by 1992, all just on the edge of the national park. That is the extent of the suburban sprawl and the pressure on the south: a 14 per cent. increase in the population of South Hams in the past 10 years. The pressure is increasing. Unless my hon. Friend is very robust, the diversification policy will mean that areas such as south Devon, which has been traditionally preserved by the farmers, will be destroyed by the farmers.
My plea to the Government is to introduce an extensive new category for compensation. Let the Government tell farmers in the west country that they are needed for their conservation work, and that my hon. Friend wants to see south Devon kept in pristine condition, with its rare beauty preserved. Will he perhaps declare as areas of outstanding natural beauty Britain's "farming preservation areas"? I know that we are very fond of declaring special areas, but could we at least designate such areas by another name than the de-intensification of farming? That term was defeated in the other place. We need a new name. We could vote on it, and then my right hon. Friend could say that he had won.
We must have a means of preserving south Devon and other west country areas as tourist attractions. We must preserve the countryside and find alternative land uses which, while they will not solve the farming crisis on their own, will help to solve it. Besides allowing farmers to get out of farming, the Government must encourage others to remain in farming to keep the countryside attractive so that people will spend their vacations in the west country.
That is my message today. Will my right hon. Friend act to preserve areas of outstanding natural beauty against destruction or neglect?

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). As an ardent conservationist, it would give me great pleasure to see an amendment to the wildlife and countryside legislation that recognised that, under the Government, farmers have become an endangered species. The hon. Gentleman might support that proposition in the Division Lobby. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a matter of great concern.
In many parts of Europe, there is deep anxiety about rural depopulation. It would be a great mistake to allow the present fearful situation to lead to excessive population growth and the blighting, destroying or disfiguring of attractive areas, when the scale of the problem could effectively be dealt with by greater emphasis on de-intensification. "De-intensification" is an ugly word, and the hon. Member for South Hams will recognise it as such. It is an ugly word, but it is one approach that the Government should properly pursue.
I noticed that the Earl of Cranbrook, whose father was of considerable assistance in respect of two or three of my private Member's Bills in the 1970s, put forward a cogent set of arguments in favour of that approach. I hope that a Ministry will accept that Lord Cranbrook's amendments represent a possible approach to the problem and a sensible arrangement. I do not say that the Minister's proposals are not acceptable. I am merely suggesting that other approaches should be considered.
The Minister may agree with the suggestion that the World Wildlife Fund has made to me. It suggested that the approach contained in Lord Cranbrook's new clause, which he unsuccessfully moved in another place, would be perfectly within the terms of EEC regulations. EEC regulations 1760/87 would allow the approach that the Government have so far rejected and might be an important arm in reducing the food surplus.
I have certain anxieties about the effect of the Government's proposals, which have already been aired by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who referred to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on whose council I serve. I shall not delay the House by referring to anxieties at any length, save to say that other hon. Members will refer to conservation bodies' axieties. I certainly hope that the Minister will take into account the points that have been made and seek to ensure in Committee that the anxieties that have properly been expressed and which are genuinely felt can be resolved. The Government will have to move some way towards an adequate and improved arrangement for consultation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) sought to intervene during the Minister's opening speech. He wished to make a specific and important point. He cannot be present, so I agreed to make it on his behalf. My right hon. Friend is the vice-president of the Association of County Councils. As my constituency contains a metropolitan authority, I must recognise that the Association of County Councils may have more representatives on Conservative Benches than on Opposition Benches.
The Association's concern is non-partisan, but it is serious. I referred to it in an earlier intervention. I pointed out that 10 hectares, which may be planted without any


consultation, can accommodate 25,000 trees. The Government are saying that someone can get 10 hectares of land and, without consulting anybody, can plant 25,000 trees.
Frankly, there may be some parts of the country in which the planting of 25,000 trees may be an advantage. There may be areas in which 25,000 trees may be planted and not many people will notice. However, there would be plenty of people in the constituencies of Labour Members — constituencies which we treasure more dearly than Conservative Members treasure theirs—who would be horrified if the Government allowed 25,000 trees to be planted without any consultation with or consideration for local authorities.
We have reached a pretty pass. Over the past three years, the Government have shown contempt for local government. Now they appear to be prepared to take on and ignore local government by allowing a locality to be disfigured. I accept that some Conservative Members will not worry at all. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) introduced the subject of Sunday trading into the debate. He might be prepared to swap Sunday trading for 25,000 trees in his area of Yorkshire.
Many of my constituents would bitterly resent the planting of 25,000 trees in their area and in the hon. Gentleman's area without consultation. I hope that he will not be bombarded by representations from all parts of Yorkshire if he supports this development, which is a cause for anxiety among local authorities representing the shires of England. It is because of the concern of the Association of County Councils that I hope that the Minister will pay heed not only to my comments but to the urgent point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton.
The Minister suggested that this was a limited debate touching on only some of the aspects of the problems of food surpluses. I have consulted farmers in my constituency, and they, like me, would welcome a wide debate in which we could consider the realities of our European involvement. The Minister suggested that the responsibility lies to a large extent with Europe rather than ourselves. We need a debate in which we can consider the implications of increased agricultural production, not only on a national or continental basis but on an international basis. Until there is international agreement with the United States on the price and production of cereals, the problem will continue to be serious.
If we are to consider the problem on a European scale, the Minister must recognise that the proposals made or practices followed by some other member states give cause for considerable anxiety about the arrangements that we make here. For example, the Minister well knows that the Italians have not introduced milk quotas. The French appear to be ignoring the system of dairy farming. The Germans have brought forward proposals for set-aside that make the Government's proposals—apart from the new ones with regard to certain kinds of tree planting—seem ridiculous. We cannot take a completely different view and operate on a lower scale of expenditure than our European colleagues.
I spoke in the Council of Europe Assembly debate on launching the North-South campaign last week. I largely reflected the view of the committee that I chaired with regard to forestry. We showed that the rate of destruction of forest in the world is such that the area of forest destroyed in the past four years equals the size of the largest European country. The pace of destruction is

accelerating. Given that fact, the Government must have our sympathy in tackling the problem of afforestation in a realistic manner.
I shall not suggest that our present dependency on £4.5 million-worth per year of imported timber can be ignored. We must match that dependency by increasing our timber production in Britain.
I am concerned that in this and in other ways the Government's forestry policy is largely irrelevant. We are talking about planting more trees on marginal and poor land. Perhaps we could increase our timber harvest through that policy, but it would be a marginal or modest improvement. We must increase our timber production, but not by using the poor land that cannot grow anything else and does not produce much timber per hectare. We must grasp the nettle and grow timber on grade 1 and grade 2 land. Those are largely the farms that produce the surplus and will remain untouched by the Bill. The debate —a modest one, as the Minister said—is irrelevant, to an extent.
I am not suggesting that we should turn 20 per cent. of our arable land to the production of standing timber. The Minister knows that the French have already embarked on producing cellulose and timber for industrial purposes. Once again, we are allowing a lead which we could have obtained to be surrendered to our continental colleagues.
We must afford a modest welcome to the Bill, not merely because it is the first obvious step in the spurning of market forces, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) reminded the House, but because it gives us an opportunity to debate the priorities that the Government should pursue. I hope that the Government will be sufficiently sensible to listen to the suggestions of my right hon. and hon. Friends, whether in the Chamber or in Committee, and to pay heed to the advice available from various sources, including the conservation bodies.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been commended by others, and it has basked in a little self-righteousness, in regard to its movement towards conservation. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart)—I am not complaining about the fact that he does not take part in the debate; there are obvious reasons — shook his head vigorously to deny that hedgerows had been cleared at a regrettable rate over the past few years. I remember the Ministry blocking my Hedgerows Bill in 1982 and making it clear in 1983 and 1984 that it would continue to block the Bill if I presented it again. The reason that the Ministry advanced for blocking the Bill in 1982 was that it regarded the problem as largely resolved. I believe that it had not been resolved in 1983 or 1984. It was not resolved in 198:5, and hedgerows are still disappearing at an unacceptable rate.
If the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is serious about the timber policies that it is proffering in the Bill and is concerned with the environment, as it has suggested throughout the debate, I wonder what it will do when I again present a hedgerow protection Bill later this Session. Perhaps the Minister of State would like to demonstrate the sincerity or genuineness of the conversion for which credit has been sought. I wish the Bill well, but I hope that when it emerges from Committee it will be different. I trust that the proposals made by Lord Cranbrook in another place will have received rather more sympathetic attention in this House.

Mr. Roger Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the Bill. It is a welcome initiative. I had nearly thought to say that it was a modest initiative, but I appreciate, after some 30 weeks in this place, that the word "modest" must be used with particular care.
I wish to restrict my contribution to clause 2, on the woodlands, and ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to comment on three points. First, why restrict grant in most areas to arable and improved pastures and not extend it to permanent pasture? That disqualifies most of the land that it would be realistic to put forward as suitable.
I understand that the Bill's aim is to reduce agricultural production, but surely this structure will reduce the Bill's effectiveness. In the west country, most applicants under the Bill will be small farmers; therefore, their applications will be for small acreages of woodland. I believe that, since we are talking about just a few acres, the conservation aspect has been slightly overdone, important though it is.
Secondly, in recent years many new sawmills have been set up in Scotland, Wales and England, with all the latest Scandinavian technology, but we know from the latest Forestry Commission revised surveys that there is likely to be a shortfall of coniferous logs. If we are serious about timber production, we must acknowledge that fact.
My third point concerns the planting grants and the annual grants. Unlike the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I thought for once that I had understood the drafting of a Bill and was rather proud of myself. However, I had reckoned without the briefing from that centre of excellence from which no lies emanate, in Smith square, which confused me thoroughly. It stated:
It was envisaged that during the first three years of the scheme the planting would be paid under existing forestry grant schemes based on the Forestry Commission's powers under the Forestry Act 1979, and that the annual payments would be paid by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is for these annual payments that clause 2 of the Bill provides.
That would seem fair enough for the first three years, although three years is the minimum and it may be longer. However, do applicants make an application under the forestry grants scheme in the normal way and then at a later stage apply to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? It seems a cumbersome process if applicants have to deal with two Departments. Indeed, if one must commit oneself in the first instance to a forestry grants scheme, and then apply for the MAFF annual payments, surely that will make it something of a lottery? The process should be kept as simple and as straightforward as possible. I would greatly appreciate my right hon. Friend's comments on that.
Notwithstanding those points, the Bill is a considerable step forward. The rewards to the nation that will flow from informed woodland management are significant and substantial. In some rural areas they will help to prevent depopulation and they will certainly help to keep local people employed.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): As we have heard from hon. Members of all parties, the Bill is modest and must be seen in its proper context. Its limited aim is to tackle part of the problems created by the surpluses in some agricultural commodities in the European

Community. In consequence, therefore, it lies on the fringes of the problem rather than being on the centre stage.
As we have heard, the Bill introduces grants for farmers to diversify farm businesses and to encourage them to find alternative sources of income, other than in traditional areas. Although I can give the Bill and its proposals a cautious welcome, the opportunities for diversification are limited in areas such as my constituency. Traditionally, Wales has been dependent on livestock production and dairying. Due to our terrain and weather patterns, it is difficult for our farmers to move into other areas of production. That is why the impact of milk quotas has been so severe, especially in west and north-west Wales. The Government must have regard to those difficulties. Indeed, I suspect that in such areas the Bill will have a limited impact.
I find it difficult to be objective in this matter, but I believe that an element of subjectivity is important for an hon. Member who seeks to elucidate the genuine concerns of his constituents. Over the weekend I visited Llangefni creamery, where 46 people are to lose their jobs. That visit affected me deeply. We are told that the main reason for the closure of that creamery is the lack of milk due to the imposition of milk quotas. Those people at the creamery who now face the prospect of unemployment—some have given 25 years service to agriculture—have been given what they consider derisory redundancy terms.
Those workers will read the record of this debate and they will learn that farmers are to be given grant to diversify. They agree with that prospect, but they ask, "What of us?" They have also provided sterling service to the agriculture industry, but they are to be left with little after so many years of work.
Tonight we have heard a great deal about the need to protect the economy of rural areas. I believe that the plight of the creamery workers at Llangefni and at Felinfach in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) should be recognised by the Government. I urge the Government to ensure that grants are made available to those people who have served the industry well to enable them to set up alternative small businesses. I look forward to the Minister's response to that idea.
Clause 2 relates to woodland. It has already been said many times in the debate that the proposed scheme must be attractive enough to be taken up by sufficient farmers to make it worthwhile. Time will tell whether the rates adopted by the Government will provide sufficient incentives. I welcome the encouragement given to mixed woodland, which will contain a high percentage of broadleaved trees. Parts of the countryside have been spoilt by acres of uniform conifer plantations.
I remind the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North of a Welsh saying, which, translated into English means:
When we do things, we do things in moderation.
When we consider conifer plantations I urge the hon. Gentleman that we do so in moderation. We must strike a balance between planting of conifer plantation and the planting of broadleaved trees. Having considered the provisions of the Bill and read the contributions made in the other place on Second Reading I question whether the Bill, in its present form, goes far enough to encourage the plantation of broadleaved trees. I hope that those provisions can be strengthened in Committee.
The Bill cannot be seen as the answer to reducing surpluses. In truth it is a minimalist Bill. The great problem to be tackled is the economic, cultural and social consequences of the change in agriculture. I hope that, before long, the Government will face up to that central task and bring proposals before the House.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I support and welcome the Bill. I do so as someone who had the privilege to work in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at about the time when these matters were beginning to be considered, so I would, wouldn't I?
The Bill can be defended on three separate criteria, which, as a Conservative, I would support as measures of Government assistance. The first offers adjustments to an industry facing a rapid change in economic circumstances; the second offers aid for starting up new activities within the industry; and the third recognises certain external benefits from the activities of agriculture.
Agriculture is distinctive. Most industries are conducted behind closed factory doors, but the production process of agriculture takes place in the fresh air and occupies 80 per cent. of the land surface. Therefore, it is of immediate interest to the public and to farmers.
I am pleased that the Bill, with its reference to the Development Commission, begins to move away from the concept that has been prevalent since the days of "Dig for victory", that agriculture should be the sole activity of the countryside and that industrial activity should, as far as possible, be pegged back and carried out on industrial estates in towns. The Bill can lead to greater diversification and variety, which is to the good of both.
I should mention two particular interests in woodlands. First, as a member of the Select Committee, I know that we have not yet heard evidence, let alone produced a report, but the Bill is a useful foretaste of what we shall be coming up with later. Secondly, as a farmer, I acknowledge that the Bill is directed towards farmers such as myself. I take a potential interest, as I may avail myself of the scheme later. Farmers who are not naturally knowledgeable about trees have not had to bother about them, but now they find that they may have a certain role in future.
It has been said, almost to the point of boredom, by the Government and others that the Bill is a modest one. It is entirely right that we should not try to oversell what it stands for. The Bill will not deal with agricultural surpluses. Taking out 36,000 hectares might, at best, remove one year's technological improvement in the industry. By the same token, the Bill will not deal with the timber shortage—certainly not for the time being, and, on its own, not at all. It will not reverse the downward trend in farm incomes and employment.
However, the Bill can make some useful contributions to agriculture. First, it can provide an alternative income on suitable areas of individual farms. The definition of marginal land is always somewhat slippery and confusing. It can be quite properly directed in arable areas, where the highest incentives are now to be offered, to farm areas that are less suitable or less convenient for cropping. Therefore, it can fulfil both roles. The second point is not often made in this context. In arable farming, it can spread the labour profile by giving the work force something to do in winter.
More widely, the Bill can increase the timber-consciousness of farmers, to which I referred in my own

case. In Germany, half the farms have a significant farm forest enterprise. If that is to catch hold, it will need more than the Bill; it will need a big thrust into the improved marketing of timber. I am pleased to see the way in which the timber industry has reacted to the crisis of windblow in the south-east since October. It will need greater exploitation and recovery of the existing desolated woodlands.
Finally, the Bill can lead to some environmental improvement. It will lead to improvement in game habitat, an important consideration for many farmers. I am glad that not only broadleaves are to be grant-aided, and that there is to be a graded scheme, because many working farmers may wish to avail themselves of it. It is appropriate that they should be able to plant conifers as a nurse crop and a cash crop while the broadleaves are growing up.
That leads me to touch briefly on areas of contention. I support hon. Members who have spoken about permanent pasture. The scheme is cash-limited and size-limited. It is entirely appropriate that, if farmers deem the part of their farm that is now in permanent pasture to be most appropriate, they should be entitled to use it. As for conservation, I have listened to speeches from both sides of the House and read submissions from the RSPB and the CPRE, of which I am a member. The difficulty is that farming has an internal and an external aspect. It is important that both are harmonised and kept in line.
I am not absolutely certain that the answer is to maintain the existing process of consultation through the forestry grants scheme, which has been argued by many conservation interests. It might be worth considering merely notifying, or perhaps the Forestry Commission could pass on submissions, but the Government should return to the matter and give it closer consideration. Perhaps they might consider the possibility of using the quinquennial review of the scheme not only to review the level of grant, but to review the general progress and tenor of the scheme and to work on it as the situation develops.
Both sides of the House want to help farmers and, at the same time, they want to help the countryside. We all want to ensure that the Bill is tailored to achieve those objectives.

Mr. Calum A. MacDonald: I shall be brief, because there is another important debate yet to be held and time is marching on. I shall confine myself to one important point affecting the highlands and islands of Scotland. I say with genuine regret that I can give only a faint welcome to the Bill. It is not that I do not welcome the principles behind it; I recognise the need for diversification and I welcome the support that the Bill gives to that process.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords] and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. MacDonald: As I was saying, I support the principles behind the Bill, albeit with the reservations that have been expressed by my hon. Friends.
I wish to focus on the fact that, for the crofting community of the highlands and islands, the Bill represents a missed opportunity. It is an opportunity that has been gratuitously lost. As it stands, the Bill is of academic interest only for crofters in the highlands and islands because, as the law stands, they will be unable to take advantage of the opportunity that the Bill opens up to diversify into commercial forestry. Crofters will not be able to take advantage, because trees planted on crofter common grazings belong, at present, not to the crofter but to the crofting landlord.
To correct that and enable crofters to participate in the woodland scheme would require certain legal changes that I believe could and should have been included in the Bill. In a nutshell, those changes would give crofting townships the right to own the trees they plant on common grazings, which already belong to the townships, thus enabling them to enjoy the economic benefits behind the scheme.
I believe that those legal changes could have been included in the Bill and I hope they might still be included. Surely it is unfair that crofters should be excluded from the opportunity to diversify. Crofters have already shown great commercial aptitude and enterprise in diversifying away from traditional agriculture activity. For example, in the past 10 years we have seen crofters diversify in a large way into aquaculture. Indeed, fish and shellfish farming constitute one of the great economic success stories of recent years. I have no doubt that crofters could make an equal success of commercial forestry if they were allowed to. They would not only be successful in developing it commercially, but would develop it in a way that would be sensitive to the environment and would genuinely benefit their local communities in terms of jobs and income.
I regret that the Government have failed to respond to the many entreaties they have received to extend the benefits of the Bill to the crofting community. I hope that the time and the opportunity can be found during the later stages of the Bill to make the changes necessary to correct that exclusion. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to that and not place obstacles in the way.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I should like to join my hon. Friends in welcoming this small but important Bill as a step forward in allowing farmers to diversify from farming into other ancillary industries and tourism. It is to that aspect that I wish to address my remarks.
Perhaps I may reply to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who I thought had made a speech that was intended to sabotage the Bill. He spoke about the similarities that he saw between the Bill and the Industry Act 1975. He urged my right hon. Friend the Minister to follow him down the path that he took in 1975. We all remember the Meriden motorcycle co-operative, the Scottish Daily News and other success stories of the Act.

I am sure that anybody with any sense would wish to ensure that the Bill has no similarities with the Industry Act 1975 of late memory.
I was interested to hear that this is the first agriculture debate in which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has spoken. His ignorance shone like a beacon. I probably have more dairy farmers in my constituency than any other hon. Member. If my constituents heard the right hon. Gentleman say that land prices had increased and farmers were making a profit, they would be most surprised. In the past few years, the price of land in my constituency fell from £2,000 an acre to £1,200 an acre, and has only recently increased to £1,400 an acre.
The right hon. Gentleman showed his ignorance of farm incomes, too. The latest figures for farm incomes in Wales, issued by the Welsh Office this year, show that, in real terms, dairy farm incomes in Wales went from 100 on the indices in 1982, to 81 in 1983, 56 in 1984, 79 in 1985 and 83 in 1986–87. My constituents would be very pleased indeed to have the incomes enjoyed by miners in south Wales. I only wish that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield would speak from experience rather than ignorance. He said that he listened to the radio every morning. Perhaps he should listen to Radio 2, as he clearly does not understand the farming programme on Radio 4.
Both my points relate to clause 1. The first concerns planning matters. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have a word with the Department of the Environment about the need to ensure that local authorities take into account the changing structure of the farming in the countryside. Authorities should allow those involved in farming to diversify rather than obstructing them with planning regulations that do not even allow farmers to change to carpentry—as happened recently in my constituency. I should not have thought that carpentry, as a sideline pursued by a farmer's son, necessitated too much of a change in use, but nevertheless the move was blocked by the local planning authority. It is wrong, too, that we should have planning regulations that block farmers who wish to bring derelict buildings on their land back into use, as also happened recently in my constituency. That, too, goes against the aim of clause 1.
Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will take account of the need for farmers to be allowed to advertise the businesses that they set up. For too long, restrictive conditions have been placed on advertising in the countryside. No one wants great big neon signs and advertising hoardings, but if farmers who diversify their activities are to market what they produce, it is important that they can advertise to attract passers-by who may come in on impulse and purchase their wares.
I wish to deal with the community charge and its effects on farming. We hope to extend the range of activities that farmers undertake. In my constituency, much of which is in the middle of the Pembrokeshire national park, and which has a large number of caravan sites, I have already heard from people involved in a small way in caravans, including many farmers, that if the community charge proposals go through—up to two units may attach to a second home—the amount that caravan owners have to pay may increase from £600 to £8,000 per site.

Mr. George Foulkes: Did the hon. Gentleman vote against it?

Mr. Bennett: Of course not. This is a matter of detail rather than a matter of principle. I wish the detail of the Bill to be changed, but I do not oppose the principle.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that, when representations are made about the community charge in Wales, we ensure that farmers wishing to have a few caravans on their farms are rated under the uniform business rate rather than having to pay individual domestic community charges. If we do that, and recognise that such activities constitute a business, my constituents will be greatly helped. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take my arguments on board.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Like other lion. Members, I intend to brief, and like the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), I give the Bill a cautious welcome. While there is a consensus in the farming community and other organisations that the concept of diversification is worthwhile, the Bill will have a limited effect on marginal or less-favoured areas in the farming industry.
During the debate, it has often seemed as if diversification was a new concept to agriculture, but hon. Members must be aware that in marginal areas the ingenuity of the farming community has kept the community alive. In my area of Banffshire we have deer farming, peat farming, craft centres, pottery centres, knitwear centres, bed and breakfast, tourist centres and walks. All sorts of facilities are run by the farming community to ensure the survival of the rural area. Recently it was announced that the Highlands and Islands Development Board, in conjunction with the Crown Estates Commissioners, would develop the Glenlivet estates on that basis with an overall strategy and plan. All that is happening outside the ideas of diversification in the Bill.
Indeed, within the marginal areas, farmers are much more interested in what will happen to their hill livestock compensatory amounts and to the sheepmeat regime, when the devaluation of the green pound and interest rates will be discussed; and how we shall deal with the contraction of pig production in Scotland, particularly in Grampian region. A whole variety of issues affecting agriculture are not touched on in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will tell us that we shall have an opportunity to consider those issues in future.
I seek clarification on a few points. Have the Government made any assessment of the implications for the capital value of land of planting trees? It seems that effective agricultural land has a high capital value. That is of great importance to farmers who, for example, have overdrafts. The banks are interested in the capital value of their land. Will not land planted with trees decline in capital value? Despite the allocation of grants, there could be adverse financial effects on certain farmers.
The Minister said that an agreement had been reached on a model lease so that tenant farmers could benefit from the legislation. How will the grants be allocated between tenants and landowners? Perhaps it is too early to give us that information, but certainly I shall seek proper protection for tenant farmers, who have often suffered the burden of ensuring that a family farm is continued.
I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Western Isles that we should investigate how we can assist crofters.

Finally, on planning permission, many right hon. and hon. Members spoke about the environmental impact of trees on the landscapes and the overall impression of our countryside. Tree planting has implications for existing industries. As some hon. Members know, I spoke at length on that in the Committee on the Scotch Whisky Bill last week.
Extensive afforestation is affecting the acidity levels of water and that could work to the detriment of the Scotch whisky industry. The Ministry must be careful to take into account existing industries and existing interests when it considers tree planting, so that they are not affected adversely by any diversification scheme.

Mr. Martyn Jones: The aims of the Bill must be welcomed. Agricultural surpluses are a major problem and should be dealt with, but they must be dealt with sensibly. It is estimated that about 3 million acres must be taken out of agricultural production to deal with the problem of over-production adequately.
The Government's suggestions to deal with this problem centre around diversification, primarily into timber and tourism. The Government's target for forestry is 90,000 acres and immediately it is clear that that alone will have only a small effect on surpluses. There is a world shortage of timber and the Government are right to encourage farmers, particularly those on lower grade land, to move into forestry, but if they wish the scheme to succeed, farmers must not incur any loss of income.
There must, however, be proper provision to prevent the over-planting of conifers. The Government must encourage the planting of native broadleaved species, especially as many were lost during the recent storms in the south. The consultation document will allow 95 per cent. conifer planting on uplands and 65 per cent. planting on lowlands. Those quotas are far too high. More broadleaves must be incorporated, and conservation aspects must be taken into account. Woodland wildlife must be considered, as must the problems of acidification and the damage that it can cause the environment.
The Government are offering a grant for salaries in marketing activities. Will it be paid to members of the farmer's family? If it is not, it will serve only further to drive off the land the very people who have been brought up to know and care most about it. If family members are not included, the problems of the rural young unemployed will only be accentuated.
Diversification should not be targeted only at small and medium-sized farms. By doing that, maximum returns, in terms of reducing surpluses and preserving employment, will be lost. The change to diversification on the larger farm, where the majority of agricultural employment is to be found, will have a much greater effect on the preservation of jobs in farming.
Timber and tourism will not cure the problem of agricultural surpluses, especially in areas such as my constituency. Other methods are necessary for upland, often marginal, land, as the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) said. The Government show a lack of imagination in simply paying farmers not to work their land. It makes far more sense to pay them to farm less intensively. The Government should realise that the best method of augmenting farm incomes is making it possible for them to produce food in an environmentally sound way. Grants should be paid to farmers who, through a


positive effort, lower their yields while keeping their land in production and facilitating conservation. The grant should abate any financial loss incurred through that activity.
Conservation should be the key word when discussing the elimination of surpluses. Farmers should be paid to preserve their land. That is in the interests of the nation. The countryside belongs to the people. Farmers had traditionally been seen as the guardians of the countryside — until the common agricultural policy of the EEC encouraged the hectic drive for higher and higher output. It drove many farmers to damage the environment.
Now that production is to be cut, farmers must be helped into their role as custodians of the countryside. I am sure that most farmers would be prepared to see conservation as a legitimate crop, provided that the price was right.
Any legislation which involves rural areas must preserve, if not improve, the lifestyles of those who live and work there. Moreover, it must protect the interests of the nation as a whole. It must ensure that food prices do not rise. Just as important, it must ensure that the beauty of the countryside is left intact and that it remains accessible to those who live in an urban environment. Farmers' incomes must also be protected or they will not be able to co-operate in any scheme, and grants must always cover any income that is lost.
Tourism and timber should be encouraged, as should other types of diversification, but conservation must never be neglected and the agricultural worker must always be protected by adequate housing and jobs in the countryside. Rural people should be able, with Government assistance, to care for their land as they have for many hundreds of years.

Mr. Ron Davies: We have had a wide-ranging and instructive debate. The proposals have received support, although some of it has been qualified, from both sides of the House. We have had speakers from every part of the British Isles. This bodes well for the Minister. When he introduced the Bill this evening, he said that he was looking for an easy passage through the House. He will get a swift passage, but I am not quite so sure whether he will get an easy passage.
Most of those hon. Members who spoke indicated their support. None spoke more enthusiastically than my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He and I share an interest. He will remember that, in 1972, when he came to my constituency, which was then the constituency of his right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), he visited the Bedwas colliery just outside Caerphilly, and was made an honorary member. Needless to say, that was the first colliery to be closed after the unsuccessful miners' strike.
I reassure my right hon. Friend that the sentiments that he expressed, when he said that we must defend mining communities, are felt strongly and sincerely by those of us who still represent mining communities. We extend our argument to rural communities. It is because we believe in maintaining continuity of employment and because we recognise the need for the welfare and strength of our rural communities that we are supporting the legislation this evening. However, my right hon. Friend introduced an

interesting dimension to the debate. I look forward to his contributions in Committee when we discuss matters in more detail.
I wish to correct my right hon. Friend on one point. He said that the Minister will always reward his friends. That is why Conservative Back Benchers support the Bill. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider some of the accents that we have heard in this evening's debate, because the accents of the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), and for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones), of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and of my hon. Friends who did not speak in the debate—including the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams)—would have told him that the rural areas, certainly in the west of the country, are not the prerogative of Tory Governments. We enthusiastically reject Tories, just as the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield rejected Tories.
There has been general support for the Bill. Two qualifications have been raised. Some Conservative Members expressed concern about what was called de-intensification, which I prefer to call extensification. The hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) and even my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield spoke in support of that case. The hon. Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) made it clear that the debate will not be restricted to the narrow parameters set by the Government.
The second qualification concerns areas of outstanding natural beauty. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who spoke very movingly, but unfortunately was so moved that he is no longer in the Chamber, expressed his concern about areas of outstanding natural beauty, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth and for Glanford and Scunthorpe.
It is a pity that the latter part of our proceedings was interrupted by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). He was present throughout the debate, but it is a pity that he could not follow the tenor and tone of the debate and that he had to interrupt with a particularly ill-mannered and arrogant contribution.
The peripheral areas of Britain were represented by contributions from the hon. Members for Ynys Mon and for Western Isles. We must remember that parts of the western periphery of this country have specialised forms of agriculture. I hope that we shall debate the problems of those areas in Committee and that the Government will recognise those problems.
The Minister will have gathered from the comments made that the Opposition have some reservations about the Bill. We give it a broad welcome, because we support its intention of reducing surpluses and expenditure on surpluses and of providing opportunities for those involved and employed in agriculture to diversify their businesses. It will provide a new revenue grant scheme to assist in that diversification and annual payments to assist in woodland management. I especially welcome the second innovation, because, for the first time in the programme of support by successive Governments, we have a management grant to enhance forestry and woodland management practices.
However, the Opposition have considerable reservations about some aspects of the legislation. The Minister will have understood our anxieties on environmental grounds, but I shall make some additional points on which I would appreciate his comments. Our major reservation is that the provisions will have little impact on the current surpluses. The highest woodland grant will be £190 per hectare. That low grant will not act as an incentive to convert into woodland anything other than grade 4 or 5 agricultural land. It will not be enough to attract the cereal growers on grade 1 or 2 land to diversify from cereal production to the planting of woodlands.
Secondly, the scheme will be limited to 36,000 hectares over three years. The National Farmers Union talks about taking out 1 million to 1.5 million hectares of land, so taking only 36,000 hectares out of production for this purpose is inadequate. I have no doubt that during those three years, developments in plant-breeding techniques and other technology will more than offset the loss of 36,000 hectares from production.

Mr. Foulkes: Chickenfeed.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right; it is chickenfeed.
When Baroness Trumpington introduced the Bill in the other place, she called the capital grants scheme the core of the new scheme. When the Committee discussed the statutory instrument relating to the scheme, I challenged the Minister as to whether 342 separate applications would dry up the financial resources available. The Minister conceded that that was true. If he is presenting a brand new scheme, and if its intention is to attract sufficient applications from farmers to diversify into many other activities, and to reduce the present massive surplus, I must tell him that 342 separate applications, which is all that resources will allow, will not reduce the grain mountain by even a shovelful.
The provision of the diversification or woodland grants does not depend upon the recipients reducing overall production. I welcomed the consultation document produced by the Minister some time ago. The set-aside proposals required that an individual participating in the scheme should reduce production in his holding by 20 per cent. Unfortunately, the Minister has not adopted that provision in either of the two grants that are now available.
The scheme would be improved, certainly in terms of achieving its objective of reducing surpluses, if the Minister said that any individual who received a diversification or woodland grant would be expected to reduce overall production in his holding. Under the present scheme, it will be possible to take advantage of the woodland grant and to increase production in the holding by more intensive farming. I know that our anxiety is shared by some Conservative Members.
In Farmers' Weekly in December, a journalist summed up our anxieties adequately when he said of the scheme:
However, while the scheme is a positive step in the right direction to cut EEC agricultural over-production, I fear that it will have little impact on either surpluses or farmers.
That is a fair summary of our concern about surpluses.
My last major area of concern is the environment, and the fact that the Government have not taken advantage of the opportunities that the moment has presented. In the guidelines on the legislation that we have gathered from the debates in the House of Lords and from documents produced by the Government, there has been little attempt

to protect or enhance the environment, using the opportunities that these new circumstances permit. Why have the Government excluded areas of outstanding natural beauty from the special areas on which consultation will continue?
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth mentioned consultation. Last week I asked the Minister:
what consultation procedures will precede the payment of grants under the proposed farm woodland scheme; whether they will apply to all applications; and if he will make a statement.
He answered part of the question and said, in conclusion:
However, in areas such as sites of special scientific interest, environmentally sensitive areas and national parks existing arrangements would continue to apply."—[Official Report, 26 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 176.]
Why, if the environment in all those areas is so sensitive as to require consultation, have the Government excluded areas identified by the Countryside Commission and accepted by the Government as areas of outstanding natural beauty? That question was put in the House of Lords, and I put it again to the Minister now. What are the Government's intentions in respect of areas of outstanding natural beauty? Will the consultation procedures apply to them, or will they be excluded? If they are excluded, why will the procedures apply to all those other special areas and not to them?
We are now in the paradoxical position in which an application for a planting grant alone for, say, eight hectares, will be subject to consultation, but a similar application accompanied by an application for a management grant will not. That is nonsense: it means that the more public money goes into the scheme, the less consultation there will be. That is unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) raised another point about the environment, reading well from the RSPB brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe spoke knowingly about it, too, because he understands the RSPB brief. There are no safeguards to prevent the bypassing of the schemes's guidelines. Why, for example, can a farmer who ploughs up land in one year apply the next for a planting grant, on the grounds that the land has been under cultivation? There is no provision for a cut-off point to allow the Minister to prevent that, and it would be a flagrant abuse. The areas that we are discussing, the marginal upland parts of Great Britain, have a particular attraction by virtue of their aesthetic beauty and the birds and other forms of wildlife that live in them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North spoke partly in defence of Sitka spruce. Under the proposals, an area larger than 20 acres in an area of outstanding natural beauty can be 95 per cent. planted with conifers, without consultation. That, too, is unacceptable; I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North is nodding his agreement to that. If not, I shall relay to the House the conversation that I had with him before the debate started. I asked him whether he would be speaking on behalf of the alliance, the new party, the Liberal party or himself. He said, and I paraphrase, "Well, you know me, boy. I have always spoken for the Liberals, and that is who I shall speak for tonight." No matter about the earth-shattering political developments over the last couple of weeks; and in spite of the proposed new alliance, we have the


consolation of knowing that the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North is still speaking for the Liberal party.
We shall seek amendments in Committee, and I hope that we have given the Minister sufficient food for thought to realise that there is support for the Government's proposals but that it is not unqualified. We are anxious to ensure that there are no abuses and that there are adequate environmental safeguards. For the last year or two, farmers have been in a mood of despair and despondency. The Minister will be gratified to know that I do not hold him totally to blame for that despair. Agriculture is at a crossroads and we are presenting our farmers with major challenges. If the Government are to preside over that period of change, they will have to give a lead to the farmers and to people in rural areas.
I am concerned that the legislation is limited in scope. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that it is part of a comprehensive package and one of many schemes. I understand and accept that, but I hope that, as the debate unfolds, farmers will be given a more positive lead and a more positive clue about the way in which the Government wish them to go. We shall look to the Government to give firm evidence of their intentions.
I know of the role played by the Minister in the discussions in Europe. He has received our assurance that, on stabilisers, he will receive our support. I am sure that he values that. It must be of great satisfaction to him when he tucks himself up in bed with his cup of cocoa. We shall continue to support the Government, provided that they give evidence that they will effectively tackle the structural imbalances in agriculture in the United Kingdom. That guidance must protect not only our farmers but the countryside. The Minister will be glad to know that we do not propose to divide the House on this matter. However, I shall join in the dispute with him in Committee on some of these matters.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for much of what he said, and particularly for his tribute to the blameless home life of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in Brussels the cup of cocoa normally arrives at about 4 o'clock in the morning rather than at a sensible time.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's comments about seeking the authentic voice of Liberalism. I was surprised that he lighted upon the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), because I thought that I had heard that authentic voice in the speech by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). On every possible occasion he used the phrase "on the one hand … and on the other". He said that on the one hand we do not want planning arrangements to be too loose, but on the other hand a gentleman selling ice cream was in great difficulty. He said that on the one hand we must not have too many trees because they would be intrusive, but on the other hand there is a great need for trees and we must have as many as possible.
The hon. Member for South Shields started by complaining about the Bill, which is about farm woodland, because it did not deal with organic farming.

We also heard a great deal about de-intensification. I was surprised to hear complaints about the Bill because of what is not in it, when the Bill is not designed to deal with those things. It is a modest Bill, in the sense that its purpose is to fill in the areas in which we do not have powers to do things that we need to do in terms of farm woodland and in one area of farm diversification.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) that his pressure for de-intensification to be part of the Bill is understandable. However, I hope that he will look at two things. First, he should look at what is being done on the proposed extensification scheme and, secondly, he should look at the discussions presently taking place in the European Community. We felt that it was a mistake to bring forward further proposals in that area when discussions, still continuing in Europe, would make a great deal of difference to what we were able to propose.
It is also true, of course, that we can do most of the things that we want to do in any de-intensification scheme under existing legislation or by secondary legislation, and we do not need extra powers at primary level. The Bill is largely concerned with the primary legislation that we do not have at the moment.

Mr. Steen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way. We have covered a great deal of ground. I have many answers to give, and I shall try to give them.
I have considerable sympathy with the concern that my hon. Friends have raised about horse and pony breeding. We are carefully examining the matter at the moment. Many changes have recently taken place, and they will need further investigation. I understand the points that were put forward. [An hon Member: "The right hon. Gentleman is a Liberal."] No one has ever accused me of that before. I shall save it for the next opportunity that arises.
After my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, we heard the authentic voice of Socialism from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). We must thank him for choosing an agricultural debate for the moment of reemergence. It is of particular help that his election campaign began here. We shall remember that. I shall be critical of two things that he said. I hope that he will forgive my criticism, but it is an important point.
It is an entirely out-of-date argument to suggest that, if only we could export the over-production of agriculture in the developed world to the developing world, we would do something fundamental for the problems of the hungry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will agree that Oxfam and all other major charities quite clearly say that they do not want food aid as a permanent part of the picture. They want help for countries to produce their own agricultural products and make sure that they are able to meet their own needs. One of the things that undermines them—

Mr. Frank Cook: In the meantime, the starving need to be fed.

Mr. Gummer: We are discussing a serious matter. It is not appropriate to shout from a sedentary position. Some hon. Members care about the matter too much to shout about it in such terms.
The real problem at the moment is that many foreign countries — the poorest countries in the world — find


their agriculture undermined by over-production in the West, which is then exported at low prices and makes it impossible for agriculture in such countries to work. One of the major reasons for the need to reduce production in the Western world is to give a fair deal to those who are trying to produce in the Third world. It is a serious matter, and we must address it. Frankly, we cannot do so with the out-of-date views of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
The right hon. Gentleman also tried to compare agriculture with the coal industry. One of the differences is that agriculture has been a fundamentally successful industry in enabling us to compete with other countries. We are not in the difficulty of having an industry that needs considerable restructuring because of its production patterns. We are in the difficulty of having an industry that has been so successful that it is able to feed all those who need its food, yet, at the same time, is asked to look after the land and care for the countryside. All that we are trying to do with the Bill and with other measures is give farmers an opportunity to continue to care for the countryside. After all, they are, and have always been, the first line of conservation.
I remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman repeated his belief in the common ownership of land. We shall make sure that no one fails to know that that is still part of the basic tenets of Socialism, and we shall remind as many people as possible. It will have the same electoral effect as it has had since the 17th century. It did much to bring back the monarchy, it has done much to support Conservative Governments down the ages, and we shall make sure that it will continue to do so.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) for his tribute to farmers and his point about planning permission. I inform the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) that the problem that he raised about the north of Ireland is exactly the same as that in my constituency. We all heard his words. He said that things in Northern Ireland are different in that they are exactly the same.
There is a great need for some local authorities to remember that the countryside is a workplace; it is a place of employment. It is a place where, if it is to be alive and not a museum, there must be jobs for people—jobs not just for farmers but for farm workers and for ex-farm workers. Unless local authorities are prepared to recognise that it is a workplace, that as such it has as great an importance as many of the other demands that are made of it, including the demands of those who have chosen the countryside as a place of retirement, and to accept that a balance must he achieved between them, there will be many unemployed people who need not be unemployed. The countryside will be artificial and false, not the real countryside that springs from the working population that lives there.

Mr. Ron Davies: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, to which I should like to reply. No doubt in Committee we shall be able to go into the matter in more detail.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North defended the conifer. I do not want to talk of the conifer in an idealistic way which fails to refer to those marching series of trees, which all of us have seen in many

parts of the country, and which the Forestry Commission and others would now admit was not the right way to produce a forestry industry. The hon. Gentleman was right to correct the balance. In the area in which I live, some of the best views are enhanced considerably by conifers. It would be wrong to pretend that all conifers are ugly or that they cannot be planted sensibly.
One must ask how best to do it. It is difficult to achieve a balance, but how does one encourage farmers who have not been foresters in the past to begin to plant trees? One must ensure that the system is not so complicated that they will not begin to try. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) that they will have to make one application, not two. The application will be considered by the Forestry Commission and the Ministry because the needs and responsibilities of each are different.
That is why we have tried to make the consultation system rather simpler. We felt that, if we wanted to encourage people to go into Forestry for the first time, they should not be confronted by a vastly complicated means of so doing. Naturally, they are reserved about the concept of someone else telling them whether they may plant a particular crop. If farmers are to perceive forestry in small areas as a crop, which is what we want, there must not be a special arrangement for this crop that makes it completely different, much more complicated and very much more frightening than other crops.
I understand Labour Members' concern about this matter. It was for that reason that I was particularly careful to meet representatives of all the environmental bodies, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and listened to them most carefully. If we find, in our review in three years' time when we reconsider the matter, that any of the fears that have been advanced are seriously justified, we will have to think again.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was right about the problems with regard to the 25,000 trees and of the tenant farmer. However, in every case, permission must be granted. The grant will be given by the Ministry, and it will be possible for us to say, and we shall do so, "It is unsuitable in these circumstances." The Forestry Commission will be able to say, "It is unsuitable in these circumstances." The mix that is offered is one that the Forestry Commission can refuse.
All these matters are built into the arrangements. If we ask farmers to have a prescription that is so particular and detailed and demands so much negotiation and discussion and say that there must be so many broadleaved trees, whatever the circumstances, we shall defeat the object of the Bill.

Mr. Hardy: Many of us have a high regard for the Forestry Commission, which the Minister will share. It is particularly concerned about production rather than some of the other aspects of tree planting. If the Minister will not give way on consultation, will he ensure—this point has been made by one or two hon. Members — that members of the Development Commission will adequately reflect the conservation interest? If not, the alarm will be raised very much earlier than the three-year period that he referred to earlier.

Mr. Gummer: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. That is not within my gift, but I shall ensure that the point is made clearly to those whose gift it is.
The Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are concerned about this


matter. We take the same view. We are looking at the environmental impact. We have made it clear that that is part of what we are trying to do in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) talked about the indexing of payments. I am fundamentally opposed to indexing any payments in those circumstances. That is not a helpful way of proceeding. We must say that we will review the payments after the first three years and then regularly after that. That is the way to proceed.
I am unhappy about indexing. Sometimes circumstances will dictate a different choice. An annual review would provide for too short a time to measure the impact. We have said that we will review it in three years and then every five years thereafter. That will mean a better balance when seeing how it has panned out. Tree growing is a long-term matter, not one that can be easily dealt with as quickly as my hon. Friend suggests.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) talked about the monitoring of the scheme. We shall monitor it, although I do not think that it would be right to do so annually. Grants can and will be withheld if we feel that the circumstances mean that they are an intrusion into the environment.
I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on Sunday trading—we might have some difficulties in that — but I share his concern about planning. I should like to underline what he said about the farmer's wife being a key figure. Clearly, she has been taking the lead in diversification.

Mr. Foulkes: That is sexist.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made clear the need for a diverse society in the countryside. We are trying to carry that through— [Interruption.] There is very little that is sexist in saying that farmers' wives are female, but the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has this difficult problem with which to cope. As he has not been involved in the debate and so far has intervened several times, as usual, from a seated position, perhaps we can leave it there.
The hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) referred to crofting communities. Such communities are more appropriately a matter for a Scottish Bill. We felt that, if we went into that,

we would open this Bill very much further, but I take the hon. Members' points on board and will ensure that the Scottish Office considers them.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that finance would allow for just a very small number of people to be covered if they all asked for the maximum amount and all received it within the right time in exactly the same period. Of course that is possible, but it will not happen. Even I would be prepared to take a very small bet on the fact that it will not happen in that way. Many of the hon. Gentleman's other points are worthy of much more consideration, but that is not one about which I would be concerned.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly raised an important point on areas of outstanding natural beauty. We made a list of places in which we would continue the present consultation procedures. It is no secret that we are considering whether the present consultation procedures in every case are exactly suitable. The hon. Gentleman need not worry. It will be a matter that the Government as well as the Opposition will bring up in Committee, so the hon. Gentleman need not think that it must be pressed now.
The debate has shown general and widespread support for this proposal. Both sides of the House accept that this is only part of a package which is necessary to deal with the problems of over-production, to contribute more towards the improvement of our environment and to ascertain whether we can put something by to meet future timber needs. These are all things that we believe to be good in themselves. They are not anything like the whole package, nor do they go as far as some would like. I remind the House that, as with environmentally sensitive areas, we proposed a relatively small scheme to begin with; we found it rapidly to be a success; and we were able to expand it. The principle of experimentation, of seeking to do enough to learn, is the way in which we should proceed with all these new aspects with which we are concerned.
We can see that the Bill gets off to a good start, with support from both sides of the House. No doubt, in Committee, we shall be able to be a little more tetchy with one another and a little more strongly opposed in order to achieve what I hope will be a major and important step in the changing face of British agriculture.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords] [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Motion No. 3, the money resolution.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Mr. Deputy Speaker —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is as on the Order Paper—

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I stood to speak on the money resolution and shouted out several times. Therefore, I request that you call me to speak on it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I had not noticed him. I will reverse engines and call him. Mr. Cryer.

Motion made and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any grant paid by virtue of a scheme under that Act; and
(b) any administrative expenses incurred in consequence of that Act by the Secretary of State or by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I take the view that the House should not let money resolutions go through just on the nod. I shall not take up much of the House's time, but a Bill which provides no calculations and which specifically provides for payments to be made under subordinate legislation should not go through without questioning.
The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
The Bill only provides enabling powers but the subordinate legislation when implemented will entail an increase in public expenditure and probably in public service manpower. The amount will depend on the resources available, the rates of grant, the uptake of the schemes and other factors.
As the Minister said that this was a "modest" Bill, the Government should have some idea of the amount of public expenditure involved, because once the Bill is through this place, that matter is left entirely to the Minister.
The money resolution states:
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament".
It goes on to list the grants and other administration expenses.
During his opening speech on the Bill, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told us that the grants will be at varying rates—at 25 per cent. for capital grant and at 50 per cent. of the cost of feasibility studies. However, the Minister can presumably vary that proportion if he so chooses, because he is empowered to make that authorisation under subordinate legislation.
In winding up, the Minister of State said that there will be simple applications and that farmers will be encouraged to make those applications. I do not suppose that anybody will object to that, but the fact is that that will mean

potentially greater public expenditure. The Government do not do that, for example, for supplementary benefit applicants. They do not say, "'We want to make it as simple as possible. We are going to encourage people to make applications." Indeed, the Government criticise Labo urcontrolled local authorities that do encourage applications for supplementary benefit. 'They make that argument because there is a great deal of expenditure in the supplementary benefit vote.
Therefore, what concerns me is that, if the Government are to make applications simple and encourage them, they should have some idea of the total expenditure so that, if it is coming to an end, they can tell the farming community that there is not a bottomless pit and that grants will be curtailed because the amount of money that has been allocated is not unlimited. It is that authority that causes me concern.
In, for example, the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill which went through this House recently and cut grants to manufacturing industry in the regions —areas of high unemployment—the financial effects of that Bill were specifically set out. They stated:
Planned expenditure in 1988/89 is approximately £210 million, falling away to approximately £115 million in 1990/91.
Admittedly it is easier to calculate expenditure than to calculate the amount that will be spent. Surely the Minister would not accept that the Department of Trade arid Industry is more accurate in making those calculations than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am sure that MAFF is used to dealing with the large amounts of subsidies that have gone, in a variety of ways, to farmers throughout the post-war period and certainly as a result of the CAP. Indeed, MAFF has an enviable reputation for providing advice, support and guidance to the farming community. It is important that MAFF provides that help — it did so between 1939–1945 and has done so ever since. Farmers do not stand alone in the market place, in competition, without Government intervention.
Given the Ministry's knowledge, surely some calculations have been made about the amount of expenditure, the number of farmers likely to be affected and the sort of grants that will be made. After all, clause 1 tells us about the proportion of grants–25 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively—that will be entailed in the Bill, and they should give the Ministry some idea of the expenditure.
I do not intend to oppose the money resolution, but I simply wish to place on record the fact that I believe that the Government should provide an explanation for the expenditure and calculations should be made. Such information should be included in the explanatory and financial memorandum of the Bill; if it is not included it makes a mockery of the term "financial memorandum".

Mr. Tony Benn: I wish to ask the Minister a straightforward question: how much money has the Ministry got the Treasury to agree should be expended in the first three years operation of the Bill? We are told that it is not an open-ended commitment —those who get it will be the first to apply. Therefore, figures must have been agreed with the Chancellor before the White Paper was published. How much money has the Treasury agreed that the Ministry can spend on this measure in the first three years of its operation?

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that there is £1 million a year for farm diversification, which is cash-limited. By 1990–91, we expect to be talking about £10 million for the farm woodland scheme. Obviously, if we made alterations thereafter to the rate of grant, there would be a different figure, but that is the nature of trying to make long-term arrangements for forestry. If we want people to grow trees, we must accept that that takes a long time. Therefore, any financial arrangements must take that into account.
There is also £3 million for capital grants that are not specifically in the money resolution, but which have close associations with it. That which is not cash-limited is hectarage-limited. There is no cash-limiting in the long term for the farm woodland scheme, so we have said how many hectares should be covered. That represents a clear financial commitment.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has such great concern about cash limitation and about what the Government are spending, given that the taxpayer has to pay. I look forward to the many occasions on which I shall remind him of his speech. It is not a speech that comes well from an hon. Member who is normally making unlimited demands on the public purse.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any grant paid by virtue of a scheme under that Act; and
(b) any administrative expenses incurred in consequence of that Act by the Secretary of State or by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This modest but valuable Bill was welcomed by both sides of the House on Second Reading. The discussions in the full and comprehensive Committee stage underlined the support for the measure. No amendments were tabled. In the circumstances I do not propose to take up the time of the House at this hour, which is rather later than we were anticipating, with a long speech. However, I shall gladly try to respond to any questions or points that have not previously been put.
As the House will by now know, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency will stimulate private investment in developing countries through the provision of contracts of guarantee against defined political risks. It will also provide technical assistance for investment promotion. Therefore, it should help the social and economic development of developing countries. That is an aim which I know is supported by both sides of the House.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable us to give effect to the MIGA convention by ratifying it. On Second Reading I told the House that 20 countries with about 23 per cent. of allocated shares had ratified the convention. Since then, the number of countries has grown to 23, and their shareholdings to 25 per cent. Britain's allocated shareholding is just under 5 per cent. An early ratification by the United Kingdom would, therefore, bring the total shareholdings of the ratifying countries to the trigger level of one third which is needed for the convention to enter into force.
Once again I confidently commend the Third Reading and I express my gratitude to hon. Members from both sides of the House for the support which they have given the Bill so far, and which I hope they will continue to demonstrate at some stage tonight.

Miss Joan Lestor: Like the Minister, I have no wish to delay the House for more than a few moments on the Third Reading of the Bill and the ratifying of the convention. After the amicable Committee stage I should stress again that MIGA can play its part in offering a degree of confidence and security to investors in the developing world. However, poverty, hunger and disease are the main causes of the economic instability that investors fear. Although MIGA can definitely play its part, without a conscious and sustained effort by the international community to promote human welfare and economic development, the present decline in overseas investment is likely to continue.
As has been said, MIGA offers guarantees to private investors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) mentioned in Committee, it is fair to ask what guarantee MIGA will offer the developing countries that accept investments. Guarantees on environmental matters were raised, for example, in view of Bhopal. Such guarantees are essential.

In Committee the Minister gave some assurances on those matters. It is those matters, in particular, that we will be watching, especially since the president of the World Bank has recently responded to criticisms about some of the environmental shortcomings of some activities and investments. Now it seems that the World Bank is willing to improve project appraisal and to take account of the impact on the environment. MIGA must follow ,:hat example and refuse to guarantee investments that fail to meet the stringent development and environmental criteria. With those few remarks, I hope that we can proceed fairly soon.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Like my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), I will not delay the House too long on this excellent measure, or attempt to make a Second Reading speech on the aid budget. I notice that many right hon. and hon. Members spoke on that on Second Reading from which I was unfortunately absent due to commitments at the Institute of Development Studies on that day.
Having read the reports of the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage, may I ask the Minister one or two questions? First, let me say that a measure that encourages direct private investment in Third world countries is to be wholeheartedly welcomed. I believe that the Minister deserves a great deal of credit for bringing this measure forward quickly. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer also deserves credit for signing the original agreement. It is part and parcel of the extremely fruitful moves of the Minister and the Chancellor who produced the initiatives on debt and produced this excellent measure for our consideration.
May I ask the Minister about one or two technical matters? Will the cost of MIGA add to the costs of private companies investing in Third world countries and, therefore, to the cost of production in the countries in which investment is made? In the long run, will it add to the total indebtedness of, and the repayments due from, Third world countries as a result of investment by private companies in those countries? If so, is there any way in which we can ensure that those costs are minimised and that large overhead costs of running MIGA in Washington are not passed on to the impoverished Third world countries?
Will not MIGA compete with the private insurance market, which also offers political risk insurance? I hope that this international agency will act where the normal private insurance market declines to take a risk and that there will therefore be no direct competition between MIGA and the private insurance market, although I would expect MIGA to offset some of its risks in the private insurance market.
Will MIGA cover trade risks? If so, will that function be included in the total amount available under MIGA, or will it simply be capital risks? Many start-up trade-type investments in projects overseas could properly be entitled trade risks. I am anxious to know whether the new agency will cover the risks of the supply of initial products, raw materials, spare parts and so on to start-up projects.
If a host Government to a MIGA-guaranteed project of investment commits the type of political risk that we are discussing — restrictions on currency conversion or transfer, the possibility of expropriation by the host Government and the repudiation of risks where the


investor suffers a loss through breach of contract by the host Government were the principal categories to which the Minister referred on Second Reading — and thus undermines a MIGA-guaranteed investment, will that Government suffer in any way other than by being denied MIGA cover for further investment?
On the delicate subject of the cost to the aid budget, I welcome the dual responsibility of the Treasury, which, I understand, is to bear 50 per cent. of the initial costs of setting up MIGA, and the Overseas Development Administration which is to bear the other 50 per cent. Will the Minister confirm that what is in the aid framework to the end of March is a figure of $131,463? That is my calculation of the ODA's likely contribution from its budget, but I should not like to trust my interpretation of the figures. Presumably the money will not be disbursed this year but will have to be carried over to next year. The figure will, therefore, enter the element of the aid budget known as slippage and will be otherwise deployed for overseas development investment before the end of this financial year.
I also ask that this agency does not operate as the ECGD has operated, rationing the amount of cover which it will give to any particular country according to the overall sum available, and thus denying MIGA cover to some worthwhile investments and making it difficult for an investment to get other insurance from the private market for other elements of the package. I hope that such rationing will not take place because in the case of the ECGD it has been a serious disincentive to investment in many countries.
Those are my few remarks and questions on this excellent measure, and I hope that the House will vote unanimously for its Third Reading.

Sir Russell Johnston: I should like to restate Liberal support for this modest measure which is a constructive initiative to help investment in underdeveloped countries and so, perhaps, to reduce the immense problem of international debt.
Sadly, it is a fact that many still naively suppose that there is a positive flow from the developed to the poorest countries, stemming from foreign aid payments. The hard fact we must face is that the reverse is true and interest alone due on the developing world's debt is greater than the total amount of aid that it receives. Taking into account both aid and debt repayments, the developing world pays a net payment of $26,000 million per year to the developed world, which is about £14,000 million. That is the background to the Bill and the reason why it is of value. It does not go anything like far enough and what is urgently needed is a new initiative from the Group of Seven.
The striking feature about the passage of the Bill has been the almost total lack of dissent from any quarter both tonight and in Committee, which I unfortunately missed. Indeed, the Minister said that he was willing to answer any questions, and I am not sure that that is altogether normal on Third Reading.
But that same confidence has not been evident everywhere outside the House. I have received some correspondence from people who have drawn parallels between MIGA and the International Tin Council which

collapsed in late 1985. This is not the time to go into the details of that, and if the Minister has not read the document on that I shall certainly send it to him. I hope that he will confirm that there are significant differences betweeen MIGA and the ITC. I hope that the lessons of that experience have been learnt. Perhaps the most significant difference is that the MIGA convention is clear about the liabilities to which member states lay themselves open by joining. Some 80 per cent. of the subscription takes the form of money on call, held initially by member states, whereas the ITC did not explicitly limit liability in that way, which made the commitment conceivably greater, but in practice much less reliable.
I have three points to put to the Minister. First, in view of those who have experience of the ITC, no well advised company would insure or re-insure risks within MIGA without a cast-iron guarantee from its Government. I question that, but perhaps the Minister will respond.
There is an interesting query about the fact that, apparently, no legal action to enforce a contract with MIGA could be brought in the country where it has an office, which presumably means Washington DC. I do not know about that.
A comparison is drawn between the voting structure in MIGA and that in the ITC. It is argued that the form is similar and could produce comparable paralysis in a crisis. I would be happy to have confirmation that such fears are not well founded. The commitment of the World Bank, its record in such matters and the fact that its president is to be the ex-officio chairman must provide confidence, and it is confidence about which we are talking and which the agency is designed to reinforce.
I happily give full support to this laudable, if limited, Bill and, naturally enough, I trust that the Government will keep a close eye on what is happening and ensure that it operates sensibly and prudently. If it does not, it will fail to win the confidence of investors in Third world countries, which, after all, is what it is all about.

Mr. Chris Patten: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to this short debate. I start by taking up what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said. The debate is about giving the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill a Third Reading. The hon. Gentleman referred to the correspondence, which many of us have had, about the affairs of the International Tin Council. With respect to that correspondence, it is somewhere between a googly and a red herring. It is a red googly. Perhaps I can turn it to leg relatively briefly, but I shall do so because I know that several hon. Members have received that correspondence.
The critique that has been circulated is based, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, on the hypothesis that MIGA will become insolvent. It does not talk about if it becomes insolvent. It is a spartan "if. For several reasons, I believe that such an event is improbable. First, article 22 of the convention places limits on the amount of contingent liability that the agency can assume, and it envisages risk diversification measures to limit the agency's exposure. Article 25 enjoins the agency to
carry out its activities in accordance with sound business and prudent financial management practices with a view to maintaining under all circumstances its ability to meet its financial obligations.
It is inevitable that some of the agency's insured risks will become losses, but it is inconceivable that they will all


become losses. By spreading its business judiciously, MIGA should be able to minimise the risk of a heavy volume of claims straining its ability to meet its total liabilities. The difference from the ITC, which dealt with only one commodity, is fairly obvious.
Secondly, MIGA will be part of the World Bank group of agencies, and the chairman of its board of directors will be the president of the World Bank. No member of the World Bank group, and no other international financial institution of which the United Kingdom has been a member, has ever become insolvent or even had to call on its callable capital. They all enjoy AAA rating by the major credit agencies.
Thirdly, the experience of ECGD's investment insurance scheme, which is similar to MIGA's, is that, with sound management and taking one year with another, such schemes will be viable.
Fourthly, MIGA will have a board of directors appointed by member countries which, under article 32(a), will be responsible for the general operations of the agency. I am confident that the hoard will ensure that the agency will discharge its obligations following prudent financial management practice.
The financial obligations of members under articles 7 and 8 will be to pay 10 per cent. of their share prices in cash and a further 10 per cent. in promissory notes. The promissory notes will be drawn down only if necessary and if approved by the board of directors. The other 80 per cent. of the capital is callable. The callable capital of the other international financial institutions has never been called. Similarly, there is no reason to expect that MIGA's callable capital will ever need to be called, but it is available in the last resort if needed.
Article 55 deals with the unlikely event of liquidation. It makes it clear that guarantee holders and other creditors would have priority over members in the distribution of assets.
Those are all points that I would have been delighted to make to those who have corresponded with hon. Members. I dare say that I could have saved a few postage bills had I been approached in that way.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) mentioned the needs of the developing world and said that they would not be met even by an increase in private investment in response to this important measure. Of course, we must consider other ways of channelling and effectively targeting resources to the developing world. God willing, several of us will be here later in the week to discuss the

International Development Agency replenishment order, which is an attempt—I hope that it will be successful—.to do precisely what the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber want.
The hon. Lady mentioned some of the warnings that she gave in Committee, and that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) gave on Second Reading, about the acceptability and unacceptability of investment in developing countries. She drew attention especially to environmental concerns and paid appropriate tribute to the interest of the president of the World Bank in this issue and his determination that that interest should be reflected in the policies pursued by the bank.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), whom we missed on Second Reading and in Committee, and whose questions might have received even more comprehensive answers had they been put then, asked several questions. I thank him for his comments about the debt initiative which the United Kingdom has been pursuing, with some success, in the international financial forums. He mentioned the costs of investing in developing countries. Investors will have to pay premiums for insurance policies. I hope that administrative costs will be a very small part of the overall turnover. Any costs should be offset by the increased confidence that investors will have about the success of investing in poorer countries. My hon. Friend also mentioned private insurance. We hope that MIGA and private insurance companies will complement each other, with co-insurance and reinsurance. My hon. Friend also asked about coverage of risks. I draw his attention to article 11 of the convention, which I believe covers that point adequately.
My hon. Friend asked about the aid framework. I assure him that the figures that he mentioned are covered in the aid framework: half our initial subscription. The normal rules of rollover apply and are, as my hon. Friend knows from his experience on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the subject of regular discussion with that important and wise body.
I trust that, on that bit of flannel, I can conclude this debate by commending this important measure to the House and looking forward to equally rewarding and uncontroversial discussions in the weeks, months and even years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Local Authority Search Inquiries

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. John Heddle: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for attending the House at this late hour to debate a matter of great concern to the constituents of all right hon. and hon. Members. I am delighted to see my hon. Friends the Members for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) here tonight. Given that the subject of tonight's debate is the reduction in the delay of local authorities in replying to solicitors' local searches, I shall endeavour to be economical with my words to ensure that this Adjournment debate does not last beyond midnight.
It is the declared wish and intention of the Government, and I wholeheartedly support them, to extend home ownership as widely as possible across the social spectrum in all four corners of the United Kingdom. It is, therefore, the Government's responsibility to ensure that the path to home ownership is not strewn with pitfalls or potholes, with bureaucratic undergrowth or unnecessary expense and, most particularly, that, by precept and example, we eliminate that awful practice of gazumping.
The House will recall that, in February of last year, I introduced, under the ten-minute Bill procedure, the Law of Property (Amendment) Bill, the object of which was to eliminate gazumping as far as practically and politically possible, by reducing the time between the acceptance of an offer by a vendor and the signing of a contract by the purchaser.
I was delighted to read in the Conservative party manifesto the following words:
Some people are still deterred by the costs and complications of house purchase. That is why we must look for new ways to make house buying simpler and easier. Our abolition of the conveyancing monopoly has already made it cheaper.
Since being returned to Parliament by my constituents in Mid-Staffordshire at the general election last year, I have endeavoured to seek practical and political ways of making the process of house-buying easier, simpler and cheaper. The House may recall that, in November, I introduced in a similar Adjournment debate the subject of Land Registry delays. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General replied in a most positive vein, allowing the Land Registry to retain the £27 million surplus that it made to enable it to increase its staff and to eat into the backlog of cases that all hon. Members will recall that their constituents have to suffer.
Tonight's Adjournment debate directs the attention of the House to a much more fundamental and more sinister source of delay, frustration and expense, which our constituents have to suffer.
It is an established part of the conveyancing process that before anybody is committed to buying a property he or she, or his or her solicitor, should make searches and inquiries of the local authority. The replies that the local authority gives can reveal important facts about the property. The inquiries are part of the process of making sure that the bargain will be as the buyer understood it to be when he or she made the offer in the first place.

Prospective mortgagees similarly rely upon searches and inquiries so as to be sure that nothing threatens the value of their security.
At the outset I must draw a clear distinction between two types of information sought from local authorities by solicitors acting for purchasers. Conveyancers usually apply for both together, but technically they are quite separate. First, there are the local land charges registered by local authorities under a statutory duty imposed by the Local Land Charges Act 1975. Everyone has a statutory right to search for information recorded on this register.
Secondly, there are additional inquiries on standard forms to which the authorities have agreed to supply answers. The agreement to reply is voluntary; there is no statutory duty to do so. In some cases, however, the inquiries relate to information that the authority is obliged to make available to the public, and this is a convenient way to make it available.
For some years — and increasingly in the last few years and most certainly in the last few months—it has been impossible in some areas to obtain information in reply to the inquiries within a reasonable time. I regard a reasonable time—I believe that I am supported in this by both the Law Society and the conveyancing standing committee of the Law Commission—as something of the order of 10 to 14 days. That target response time contrasts with some times that have been reported recently in the Law Society's Gazette.
Some London boroughs — these are the only ones that are recorded, but I am sure that the London boroughs to which I shall refer in a moment are not alone in being guilty of this delay and, dare I say, inefficiency and possibly negligence—have recorded periods of up to 20 weeks to reply to simple preliminary inquiries by solicitors. By contrast, correspondence in the same Law Society's Gazette has cited examples of very prompt replies.
The London borough of Lewisham, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, which is a Labour-controlled borough, takes six weeks to reply. The London borough of Lambeth, Labour-controlled, takes 10 to 12 weeks to reply. The conveyancing standing committee of the Law Commission suggests that a reasonable time is 10 to 14 days. The London borough of Camden, a Labour-controlled borough, takes 12 weeks to reply. The London borough of Hackney, Labour-controlled, takes 20 weeks —five months—to reply.
I put it to the House and to my hon. Friend the Minister that to take that long to reply to simple inquiries discriminates against the nurse, the teacher, the first-time buyer—the people who want to stand on their own two feet and rid themselves of the shackles and the interminable delays that would otherwise await them on the council housing waiting list.
I submit that this is the unacceptable face of municipal socialism and that these Labour-controlled London boroughs, and Labour-controlled boroughs elsewhere, are the worst culprits. Local councils that do not deliver a service on time must accept measures that give the public the right to the same quality of service everywhere.
A firm of solicitors in Hackney, reading in the national press recently of the imminence of tonight's Adjournment debate, wrote to me on 14 January and said:
I send a copy of a search recently received from the London borough of Hackney. You will see that the search was submitted on the 29 June 1987 and was finally received on 12 January 1988.


It will not surprise my hon. Friend the Minister that the London borough of Hackney is one of the two boroughs reported to the local ombudsman for that sort of delay. Perhaps I may tell the House what the local ombudsman, Professor Miller Yardley, said about one particular case — that of a Miss Fern, who was frustrated in her attempt to buy a house in Hackney by the council's inefficiency. He said:
Such delay is quite unreasonable and amounts to maladministration. I am also satisfied from this investigation that Miss Fern suffered injustice as a result of the Council's failure to deal with their administrative deficiencies over a long period of time … The public are charged by the Council for searches and they are entitled to receive a reasonable service for such charges. This they have patently not received in Hackney.
He concludes:
Nevertheless the Council's maladministration caused her to suffer from the additional time her purchase took, as well as to incur trouble and expense, and the Council should recognise this by making an appropriate payment to her. I would also hope the Council will quickly make some firm decisions on how to provide an efficient system for dealing with searches, and then take prompt steps to deal with the accumulated backlog.
In the time I have left, I want to suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister some practical ways of improving the service. Before doing so, it is only right and proper that I should place on record the fact that this debate is highlighting the activities of a minority—how large l do not know—of councils. Overall, most local authorities, especially those in the shire counties, give a good service, and their efforts go largely unnoticed. However, the local authorities that offer a poor service account for areas of high volume and high-price conveyancing transactions; they also cater for buoyant markets in which gazumping can flourish—so drastic measures must be taken.
Without wishing to anticipate my hon. Friend's reply, I imagine that he will tell the House that his Department has engaged in the work of the interdepartmental group by publishing a booklet simplifying house buying. I do not wish to dwell on that, nor on the consultation paper recently produced by the Law Commission entitled "Local authority enquiries: how can we eliminate delays?". I know that the discussion period for that document expires on 31 March, and I eagerly await my hon. Friend's Department's response to it.
I am sure that the conclusions that the Department reaches will be constructive and forward-thinking. However, although I am sure that there are ways of speeding up the process by privatisation and computerisation, by putting out the function of replying to local searches to the private sector, or by compelling local authorities to be more responsive by means of the Local Government Bill, I believe—I raised this point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment at Question Time just under a fortnight ago — that there are two practical measures that my hon. Friend could discuss with his ministerial colleagues in the next few days.
First, when I tried to find out, by parliamentary questions, the nationwide performance of local authorities, I was told by my hon. Friend the Member Oxford, West (Mr. Patten) a year ago when he was the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, and more recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the present Minister for Housing and Planning, that the information is not kept

centrally. But the Department of the Environment is responsible for the behaviour of local authorities nationwide, and that infonnation should be centrally available to hon. Members, just as information on each authority's rent arrears and void houses is available to us all.
Secondly, and more importantly, when a local authority falls down on its obligations and responsibilities to the public by not responding within a reasonable period of time—I suggest 14 days—legislative powers should be taken to allow members of the public or their professional advisers to carry out personal searches.
Local authorities will tell my hon. Friend that of course they have no objection to the public carrying out personal searches. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that most of the local authorities in my firing line in this debate, and certainly all those that I have mentioned, do not allow solicitors, licensed conveyancers or members of the public to make personal searches. The only way to outlaw this despicable, insidious practice of discouraging people from wanting to buy their own house simply, quickly and cheaply, and the only way to rid local authorities of inefficiency and maladministration, is to do as I suggest. I await with great pleasure and anticipation my hon. Friend's response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Having listened carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), I can see how wise his constituents were to return him to the House last June. Such eloquence and such thoughtful argument in so concise a time does credit to my hon. Friend and to the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising a matter that is of widespread concern. He is particularly well qualified to speak on this subject, as he has been involved in the property and housing world for many years, first as a surveyor and currently as a vice president of the Building Societies Association.
My hon. Friend has been hard working and persuasive in pursuing the interests of the house-buying public. This is by no means the first evening on which he has stayed late to press his strongly held views on this subject. I note that he raised the issue of delays in the Land Registry during an Adjournment debate on 30 November last year. I know that he is following with interest the progress being made on computerising local authority searches. I shall of course be responding to the constructive suggestions that my hon. Friend has made, but I should first like to spell out the nature of the problem as we see it.
In the first part of his speech, my hon. Friend alluded to the fact that the search inquiry is a two-part process. It is important to make a distinction between the two parts. First, there is the statutory search of the local land charges register to establish whether the property is subject to any charges. Under the Local Land Charges Act 1975, everyone has the right to obtain information from this register. The statutory search is quite straightforward because it simply involves checking against the index. This part of the process can be done quickly and we have no reason to think that it contributes to delays in responding to inquiries.
The other part of the process is to make general inquiries of the local authority about matters such as planning consents, local structure plans, road building


proposals and a wide range of other matters that may affect the value and use of the land. These are generally known as supplementary inquiries. They are not part of the statutory search, but they are invariably carried out as part of the same process, and it is in responding to these inquiries that delays occur. They are much more labour intensive than the statutory search and often require contributions from several different departments within the local authority.
The supplementary inquiries have not always been linked to the statutory search. Until the eve of the second world war, conveyancers were expected to ask for supplementary information separately. At that time, the inquiries were made after contracts were exchanged, rather than before. This was a rather ad hoc system and it became more and more unwieldy as inquiries became more frequent and more diverse.
In 1939, the local authorities and the Law Society decided that it would be more sensible to prepare a list of the main questions which needed answers with a recommended fee for answering the questions. The list of questions has grown over the years, so that the standard forms produced by the Law Society and local authorities now contain 18 questions for use in every case and 13 more questions that can be used when appropriate. They cover a wide range of topics, from drainage to planning to clean air legislation. As the range of inquiries has grown, so has the number of local authority departments that may be involved in supplying the information. Not surprisingly, that has affected the speed with which inquiries are processed. In 1939, the Law Society and local authorities laid down a maximum of seven days for a reply to inquiries. In a paper published last December, the Law Commission's conveyancing standing committee recognised that times have changed. The committee suggested that, nowadays, the satisfactory maximum period for answering routine inquiries would be 10 working days.
We would all agree that, if we were simply talking about an increase from seven days to 10 days, there would be no need for this debate. However, my hon. Friend has demonstrated that the scale of the problem is much more severe than that. He quoted examples of delays. We could all tell similar stories. The question is what evidence there is to show how widespread the problem is. Let me quote the evidence that we have. I shall start by quoting my own. My hon. Friend was kind enough to refer to my constituency. I regret that he had to do so in the light that he did. He is right. Many of my constituents have made representations to me in Lewisham. The delays there–45 days in many cases—are unacceptable.
The local authority associations gave evidence about delays to the Government's conveyancing committee, which published a report in January 1985. The figures that it gave to the committee were interesting. They show that out of 361 authorities who responded, over half replied to search inquiries within 10 days, on average. On the other hand, 61 authorities took more than 15 days to reply. But the figures hide the fact that, in some cases, delays are considerably longer than 15 days. The Holborn Law Society, in evidence to the committee, recorded response times from six London boroughs during the second half of 1982 as rising to five, seven, eight and nine weeks, and in one case to three months. We do not need to go back

to 1982 for that sort of evidence. The Law Society Gazette regularly carries a table of delays in London. In 1987, it recorded periods of up to 20 weeks.
I am glad that my hon. Friend recognised that most authorities are providing a reasonable service to the house buyer. We must not lose sight of that fact when we consider the problem. But it is also clear that there is a genuine and serious problem in some areas. For those whose attempt to buy a house has been unnecessarily prolonged or thwarted altogether, it is no consolation to know that there are other areas, often not far away, where the same process would have taken place much more quickly.
When considering the reasons for delays, we accept that it is clear that the amount of work involved in dealing with supplementary inquiries has increased since the present system was introduced in 1939. The number of local authority departments involved has grown. Moreover, the level of activity in the house market has increased in recent years, especially in London and the south-east. All those factors have contributed to slowing down the process. Furthermore, there are undoubtedly cases in which the conveyancer is at fault—by not describing the property accurately; by addressing inquiries to the wrong local authority; by supplying incorrect information; or by not sending in enough money to pay the fee. Local authorities attribute delay to factors such as peaks in demand, staff sickness or vacancies.
None of this alters the fact that some authorities perform much better than others. The difference in performance cannot be attributed entirely to the different circumstances or work loads of particular authorities. My hon. Friend will agree that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that long delays are due to inefficiency or bad organisation or arise because the authority gives low priority to dealing with inquiries.
I suggested at the start of my comments that delays are caused by supplementary inquiries rather than by the time taken to make a statutory search. Local authorities are not under a statutory duty to respond to supplementary inquiries, and they have come to a voluntary agreement with the Law Society about the standard list of questions. Since responding to inquiries is not part of a local authority's statutory responsibilities, there is no formal action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can take. However, that does not mean that the Government have been indifferent to the problems that house buyers face. As my hon. Friend knows, we have already taken action to make the house buying process easier, quicker and cheaper. We have ended solicitors' monopoly on conveyancing, and the Law Society has relaxed the rules that prevented solicitors from advertising, which has stimulated competition.
My noble and learned Friend Lord Hailsham, who was then the Lord Chancellor, set up a committee on conveyancing in February 1984. That committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Julian Farrand, to whom I pay tribute for his invaluable service on the subject, produced a report in January 1985 on conveyancing simplifications. The report described delays in local authority search inquiries as
the most contentious aspect of the operation of local authority registers".
Following that report, my noble and learned Friend asked the Law Commission to establish a conveyancing standing committee, with a continuing remit to seek and


promote ways of improving the conveyancing system. That committee has produced a very timely consultation paper on the subject, called "Local authority enquiries: how can we eliminate delays?" The committee is asking for comments on its paper by 31 March. The Government will be looking closely at the outcome of that exercise.
My hon. Friend has made some suggestions about the ways in which the search process could be speeded up. I have considerable sympathy with his ideas, but I do not want to hide the fact that we want to see the responses to the standing committee's paper and the committee's views before we decide whether Government action would be desirable and, if it would, what form it should take.
My hon. Friend suggested that we should consider privatising the service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised 10 days ago that we would consider that suggestion and that it might even be a candidate for the list of "defined activities" that local authorities must expose to competition under part I of the Local Government Bill. The Bill is currently being scrutinised in another place.
As my hon. Friend knows, we are moving forward on a broad front in that Bill. There is provision in it for my right hon. Friend to add to the list of activities subsequently by order. Our attitude has been that we would prefer not to have to force local authorities in this way. We are doing so only because they are not prepared to go ahead on their own initiative. Therefore, if there is a reasonable prospect that authorities will make use of the private sector to carry out an activity more efficiently and effectively, without the need for legislation, we would welcome it.
In the case of search inquiries, there is a complication. The nature of the activity is to collect information from various departments of the authority. Therefore, it involves a small time input from a large number of staff scattered through various departments. That makes it difficult to disentangle as a function. The delays, by and large, seem to occur not in the land charges department of the authority, but in the other departments. Unless the tenderers took over a wide range of local authority activities, the reduction in delays would probably not be significant.
For those reasons, we do not put local authority searches at the top of our list of activities to be brought within the regime laid down in part I of the Local Government Bill. However, there is a prospect of privatisation in the process and it has to do with computers. The idea of computerising the system has found widespread favour in recent years. I share the view that it has a lot to offer. There are two main reasons why it has not happened as quickly as it might.
First, there have been proposals for a nationally coordinated move towards computerisation. But quite a number of authorities have perfectly good manual systems and are able to reply to search inquiries in reasonable time. They have seen no need to computerise. That feeling has been reinforced by the fact that computerisation involves an initial capital outlay. Many authorities have not been prepared to make the outlay because they place a higher priority on other competing demands. However, the cost to the local authority need not he an obstacle. In many

areas, I feel sure that house buyers would be willing to pay a little more if that would give them a quick and reliable service. The cost of developing and installing a computer system could be borne by a private company and recouped by that company over a period of time. This has provided enough incentive for at least two companies, which, I understand, are at an advanced stage in developing computer systems to offer to local authorities. The advantage of that approach is that the private company could make the capital outlay and provide the staff to computerise the system. The costs could then be recouped through the search fee, so that they fell not on the local authority but instead on those who benefit from an improvement in the service.
My hon. Friend also proposed that there should be sanctions against local authorities who continue to respond slowly to search inquiries. The Government have not closed their mind to that idea, but it would be important to ensure that sanctions were effective. I doubt, for instance, whether it would do much for the cause if the sanction was merely to deprive the local authority of its search fee. We would hesitate before going down that sanctions road.
The main reason for hesitating is that we would then have to legislate to give a statutory basis to the supplementary inquiries. As I have already said, they are currently drawn up by agreement between the Law Society and the local authorities. We would have to decide which inquiries should be statutory; we would have to allow in some way for the minority of inquiries, which genuinely require a longer response time; and we would lose some of the flexibility of the present system. There are difficulties, but we retain an open mind and we look forward to the conveyancing standing committee's conclusions on this option.
The debate has been a timely contribution to the discussion launched by the conveyancing standing committee's paper in December. Delays of many weeks in processing search inquiries are a serious disservice to the public and I hope that the authorities concerned will start taking steps now to put things right. I repeat my exhortation to authorities to look seriously at computerisation. There are ways in which they can improve their service to the public.
In conclusion, I say to my hon. Friend that we shall look carefully at what the standing committee concludes and bear in mind his representations not only of tonight but in the other forums in which he has taken the opportunity to drive home the important points that he summarised. They will be taken into account.
I think that there is a prospect of making progress in this regard. I hope that the Government's policy of encouraging local authorities to improve their performance will start to yield results. If it does not, we may have to think again.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my apologies for speaking so rapidly in response to the comments that he made. However, he made so many important points that I wanted to ensure that as many as possible were covered.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve midnight.